"Bad economic ideas don't just create poverty—they destroy the institutional foundations of free society."

"When the line between public and private is erased," explains Reason magazine's Eric Roehm, "then politics is all about special favours."

If you want to understand the silly little scene that played out between Apple CEO Tim Cook and President Donald Trump at the White House on Wednesday," he says, "you might start by remembering something that Vice President J.D. Vance said two years ago."

While attending a conference for nationalist conservatives, Vance offered an astonishing view of politics. The 'idea that there is this extremely strong division between the public sector and the private sector' was flawed, Vance argued. In reality, he went on to say, 'there is no meaningful distinction between the public and the private sector in the American regime. It is all fused together.'

    That's a useful framework for understanding much of what has happened since Trump (with Vance at his side) returned to the White House in January. That includes various trade policies and tariffs, of course, but also the "golden share" in U.S. Steel that Trump secured for himself, and how the administration leveraged its regulatory authority to force Paramount to pay a huge settlement. In each case, the Trump administration has tried to erase (or has ignored) the distinction between the public and the private sectors ...

Trump takes a further step. To him, not only is the private public, but the public is also very personal. ... He will decide what deals are in everyone's best interest, no matter what consenting individuals engaged in peaceful, private commerce might want to do. If he's unhappy about something in Brazil, it will be your problem. And if he's pleased with gifts and tributes, then all is well.
    Do you run a foreign company trying to make a huge investment in American steel manufacturing? You'd better be prepared to cut Trump a piece of the action. Are you unhappy about Medicaid cuts that reduce the reimbursements your company receives from the government? That's nothing a $5 million donation and dinner at Mar-a-Lagocan't fix. There's a good reason why lobbying firms with direct access to the White House are reportedly keeping very, very busy these days.
    And that's why Cook found himself in the Oval Office this week, presenting Trump with a special gift from Apple: A gold and glass token of the company's appreciation for Trump's special attention."

    Shortly afterwards, Trump responded in kind. Apple is now exempt from the 100 percent tariff that Trump is imposing on high-end computer chips made in other countries. Officially, that exemption is because Apple is investing $100 billion in U.S. manufacturing. Unofficially, it sure looks like Cook's gift paid off.

This is how business is now being done in the United Police States. Make sure you give a cut of your business to the boss.

You want to secure an "export license" for chips to China, as Nvidia and AMD needed, then as they discovered too, you'd better pay your 15% bribe. That will apparently fix all security "issues. It's not about security, of course. It's just tribute to the government.

The Students of Liberty twitter feed explains the game.

Ludwig von Mises warned us 80 years ago: when governments start making individual 'deals' with private companies, we're witnessing the transformation from capitalism to something far more dangerous. The news about Nvidia and AMD giving the U.S. government 15% of chip sales to China? Mises saw this exact pattern coming. 

In his 1944 book Omnipotent Government, Mises identified a dangerous transformation he called "etatism." Think of it this way: You still "own" your business on paper, but the government tells you what to make, who to hire, what prices to charge, and who you can sell to. You're a manager, not an owner.

Mises wrote: "The entrepreneur in a capitalist society depends upon the market and upon the consumers. Every entrepreneur must daily justify his social function through subservience to the wants of the consumers." But when business success requires political deals, everything changes.

The pattern is accelerating across recent months: — Apple announced $600B U.S. investment after iPhone tariff threats — Intel's CEO visiting the White House after public criticism — Nvidia/AMD now paying 15% revenue cuts for China market access This isn't capitalism. It's what Mises called "etatism."

Mises warned that under etatism, "the government, not the consumers, directs production." When companies must seek political permission rather than consumer approval, we've crossed a dangerous line. Success becomes about relationships with power, not service to people.

So what's the big deal about these corporate negotiations? Mises saw where this leads. When Nvidia pays 15% to access China markets, they're not responding to consumer demand. They're buying political permission. This fundamentally changes how businesses operate.

Instead of competing on price, quality, and innovation, companies now compete on political connections. Resources shift from R&D and customer service to lobbying and government relations. The best politically connected firms win, not the most efficient ones.

Here's the terrifying part: even if current leaders have good intentions, they're building the infrastructure of control. Once government has the power to grant or deny market access through individual deals, that power doesn't disappear when leadership changes.

Future authoritarians won't need to seize control—they'll inherit a system where economic power already flows through political channels. Small businesses can't negotiate these deals. They face full regulations while big corporations get special arrangements. Perfect tools for political control.

Mises understood this doesn't happen in one election cycle. It's a slow infection of ideas that spreads across decades until everyone accepts that companies should negotiate with whoever holds power. Eventually, people forget that businesses once served consumers, not politicians.

Mises understood that ideas have consequences. Bad economic ideas don't just create poverty—they destroy the institutional foundations of free society.

'A Note on "Trump Derangement Syndrome"'

"'Hysterical.' 'Alarmist.' 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.' 'He’ll be constrained by institutions.' 'There are adults in the room.' 'You’re overreacting.' 'The generals won’t let him.' 'Stop being so dramatic.'
     "Every single person who said we were being hysterical about Trump being an existential threat should be forced to explain how the President seizing control of the capital’s police force and deploying military units to forcibly relocate citizens represents normal democratic governance.
    "They called us hysterical when we said he’d use the military against civilians. He’s literally doing it right now."

~ Mike Brock from his post 'A Note on "Trump Derangement Syndrome"'

Trump's tariff belief "the equivalent of a belief in witches or a belief that the earth is a flat disc balanced atop a tower of turtles."

"I realise that Trump true believers are unpersuadable; this outcome is assured by their blind faith in Trump. But for those of you who still listen to reason and facts, all you need do is to reflect on the fact that Trump believes that U.S. trade deficits in goods with individual countries - such as the U.S. trade deficit with Switzerland - is an economically meaningful concept that reveals that we Americans are 'losing' in our trade with Switzerland. This belief is the equivalent of a belief in witches or a belief that the earth is a flat disc balanced atop a tower of turtles."

~ economist Don Boudreaux

"First cognition was destroyed, then morality, then politics."

"Republicans and Democrats really do not care about facts, logic, truth. These people truly believe that 'if they wish, it is so.' If you bring logic, and consistency to them, they react: 'you are too idealistic. facts, logic, principles and honesty do not matter in politics. What matters is people’s feelings.' They act same way as toddlers: as if their actions had no consequence to their future.

"We live in times ruled by feelings. Some heroic intellectuals are hopelessly trying to explain the obvious. But dishonesty is rampant. People don’t care.

"First cognition was destroyed, then morality, then politics. If a sufficient number of Americans don’t choose to think…the final stage is coming: the end of the freedom of those who choose to think, because their sacrifice will be demanded to keep the insane alive. By force."

~ Felixe Lapyda from his post 'America needs therapy'

A tragic Trump tariff tale tweeted

"After failing to make trade deals, Trump is now just posting letters to world leaders announcing new tariff rates."

~ Meidas Touch

"Every one of the tariff letters ends by noting 'These Tariffs may be modified, upward or downward, depending on our relationship with your Country.' No American company is going to open a new factory based on the protection offered by a tariff [that] could disappear before the concrete sets."

~ Justin Wolfers

"They're not even letters. They're posts on the President's social media platform. .... So far: Japan 25% South Korea: 25% Malaysia: 25% Kazakhstan: 25% (very niiice) South Africa: 30% Laos: 40% Myanmar: 40% ... PLUS the sectoral tariffs"

~ Justin Wolfers

"Reminder: the US has a FREE TRADE AGREEMENT with South Korea, signed by the President (GWB) & implemented into LAW by Congress, and TRUMP HIMSELF signed a mini-deal w/ SK in 2018. Now ALL South Korean imports get a 25% tariff — for now. NO incentive for South Korea (or anyone else) to negotiate with him."

~ Scott Lincicome

"Unlike most of the countries Trump is shaking down with tariffs, South Korea has a free trade agreement with the U.S. (KORUS) that was ratified by Congress. The Constitution gives control of trade policy entirely to Congress, the president has no legal authority to do this."

~ Aaron Fritschner

"Trump punishes nice allies while he has not imposed any tariff on Russia or Belarus & no new sanctions either. Trump is transparently for our enemies & against our friends."

~ Anders Aslund

"[T]he logic is not just wrong - it’s economically backwards. Here's why:  

    "First, tariffs are not paid by foreign countries. A 40% tariff as an example goods means U.S. importers pay 40% more. Those importers pass the cost to consumers. Tariffs are taxes — and they hurt Americans, not the governments being 'punished.

    "Second, the letter treats the trade deficit as a threat. But a trade deficit isn’t inherently bad — it’s a reflection of dollar dominance. The U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency. Foreign nations want to hold dollars and invest in American assets — like U.S. Treasury bonds, real estate, and equities. This demand for dollars keeps the currency strong and allows Americans to buy more goods from abroad. That’s what creates a trade deficit — not weakness, but strength and global trust. So while countries exports goods to the U.S., the U.S. exports financial assets to the world. That’s not losing - that’s global balance.  

    "Third, the idea of retaliatory tariffs — 'if you raise yours, we’ll raise ours higher' — is not a strategy. It’s a threat that damages diplomacy, disrupts supply chains, and raises costs for American companies and consumers alike. Trade is not a zero-sum game. This kind of mercantilist thinking — where every deficit is seen as a loss and every surplus as a win — belongs in the 1700s. In a modern, interconnected global economy, it’s outdated and harmful. Bottom line:  

• Tariffs are taxes on Americans 
• Trade deficits reflect dollar strength, not weakness 
•  Retaliatory trade policy only hurts U.S. businesses 

"Economic nationalism may sound tough, but it’s American wallets that take the hit."

~ Jon Wiltshire

"Trump: What people don’t understand is... the country eats the tariff, the company eats the tariff and it’s not passed along at all… China is eating the tariffs. 

"Fact-check: False. Costs associated with tariffs are almost universally passed to consumers."

~ The Intellectualist

America is dead. Long live America.

"If it is ever proper for men to kneel, we should kneel

when we read the Declaration of Independence... 

 probably the greatest document in human history, 

both philosophically and literarily.”

~ Ayn Rand

Today is July the Fourth, here in NZ anyway, the day when the US celebrates the announcement of that great document, the Declaration of Independence, and everything that it meant and led to. That a new liberty was born in the world. A nation of liberty founded on the Enlightenment recognition that evey individual was rightly equal before the law (an identification so radical that it took another nine decades to realise its full implications).

Something to celebrate.

Or so it used to be.

When I removed the Statue of Liberty from my masthead 12 years ago, I explained why, with much sadness. 12 years later, the sentiment goes double:

This year, finally, I’ve decided that the small face of liberty up there on this blog’s masthead really has to go.

July 4, 2013, American Independence Day, seems the appropriate day in which to begin the process—because the America that Lady Liberty once represented is now dead, and the symbol that more properly represents her now is no longer an image of liberty. It is their Eagle of State.

There was a time when America’s Lady Liberty, a gift from France in the liberty-loving nineteenth century, represented a world in which the ideal of liberty was expounded, was expanding, and was taking over the world. Her creator, sculptor Frederic Bartholdi called her "Liberty Enlightening the World." That is the ideal that masthead of liberty is supposed to represent, and once did.

Nowhere represented that ideal more than America itself in her founding decades.

America was born in liberty. In resisting British tyranny, the American Founding Fathers harked back to European thinkers who had first and most thoroughly given voice to liberty—to Blackstone, to Montesquieu, to John Locke.

America was unique. Where other countries had been founded on accidents of geography or on tribal history, America was the first country in all history to be founded on an idea: that all men are created equal and are endowed with rights; that among these rights are those to life, liberty and the pursuit of property and happiness; that the proper job of government is not to usurp these rights, but to protect them; that these truths are held to be, or should be, self-evident.

That was what made America exceptional. 

That was the country, in all its many imperfections, to which the Founding Fathers gave birth, and the Fourth of July celebration once commemorated. The celebration wasn’t just nationalistic jingoism—July 4 wasn’t just a day to celebrate American independence, but our own as well.

That is the spirit the masthead above is intended to represent.

That is not what the United Police States stands for today.

In the former Land of the Free, tyranny has been beating back liberty for nearly a century. This year, 2013, it is finally obvious tyranny has won. Instead of Lady Liberty peeking over the parapet ready to conquer—like the new sunrise of freedom the masthead’s figure is intended to represent—she is now the setting sun of an ideal that flamed, and burned, and has been slowly snuffed out.

The idea of America lives on. But America as the representation of that ideal is now dead.

Happy July 4th.

"How would you compare the personal and economic freedoms Americans have today with those envisioned by the Founding Fathers in 1776?"

"Q: As the US approaches its 250th anniversary, how would you compare the personal and economic freedoms Americans have today with those envisioned by the Founding Fathers in 1776?

"Doug Casey: The US has had a good, long run as a beacon of freedom for the entire world, but nothing lasts forever. ... The trend in the US is critically important. However, Western civilisation is in decline throughout the world. And it’s more than just a civilisational issue. There’s a rot in ethics [and] philosophy ... [a] trend ... underscored by the presumptive election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York. He’s young, affable, charismatic. His appeal is understandable relative to the corrupt and constipated alternatives. But he’s also a Muslim communist who openly wants to overthrow what’s left of American traditions in the largest and most important city in the country. ...

"Q: What do you see as the most dangerous erosions of civil liberties in the US today—and how did we get here?

"Doug Casey: All things become corrupt and wind down over time. The Second Law of Thermodynamics affects political systems just as it does the physical world. Everything degrades and dissolves. Unfortunately, that includes the US Constitution. It’s been interpreted, amended, and disregarded into a dead letter.

"That’s particularly true of the Bill of Rights, which is the most important part of the Constitution. And the most important part of the Bill of Rights is freedom of speech. All the other freedoms rest upon it. Because if you have a thought and you can’t express it, you’re as good as a slave. You can work and pay taxes, but if you say the wrong thing, you’ll be punished. Best to restrict what you think and say to the weather, sports, and the condition of the roads. And be careful what you say about the weather…"

~ Doug Casey from his interview 'Doug Casey on the Erosion of Freedom in America Ahead of Its 250th Anniversary'

"The congressional budget bill has become the most bloated bill to ever waddle and slide through congress." [updated]

UPDATE: David Stockman, Reagan's former Budget Director: "During his first term in the Oval Office, Trump added nearly $8T to government debt. That was more than 43 presidents had combined to accumulate during the first 216 years of the Republic."

 "There is only one explanation [now] as to how the so-called conservative party looked 10-year baseline deficits of $22 trillion straight in the eye, yet then genuflected to the King of Debt and voted to add $5 trillion more red ink on top.

    "Or even more egregiously, GOP policy-makers were was told by CBO that the current fiscal path of 17% of GDP in revenues and 24% of GDP in spending will generate a catastrophic public debt of $130 trillion by mid-century. But that apparently made no never mind at all as they voted to pile on another $50 trillion, anyway—thereby insuring an eventual end-of-days financial conflagration.
    "To wit, these GOP pols sure as hell knew better, but were simply buffaloed and monkey-hammered into an act of fiscal insanity by the bellicose economic ignoramus who occupies the Oval Office. And while we are at it, let’s leave nothing to doubt: The four main planks of Trump-O-Nomics amount to a recipe for an economic Demolition Derby.
    "We are referring to catastrophic public debts, a renewed print-a-thon at the Fed, an insane Tariffpalooza and gutting America’s immigrant dependent labor market. Never before has an ill-educated buffoon come up with a more destructive policy mix and yet out of sheer bully-boy aggression single-handedly forced it upon an entire political party that should know better and which historically stood against every one of the four pillars of Trump-O-Nomics." [MORE HERE]

* * * 

"The congressional budget bill [which was passed in the US Senate today] has become the most bloated bill to ever waddle and slide through congress.

"[Trump's ill-named] 'Big Beautiful Bill' just can’t stop growing. This pile of pork that required two pallet boards and a forklift in order to move him from the House side of the Capitol building to the Senate, is getting fatter with each passing day. It may not even be possible, at this point, to move him from congress to the President’s desk for signing.

"It seems Trumpublicans, who once masqueraded as budget hawks, just cannot spend enough money these days. Having already packed in more pork than the entire nation of China could eat in a decade at a time when the US is drowning in its own debt according to every credit agency that typically matters, Senate Republicans saw the need to fit a lot more fat into the flesh folds of this cut-taxes-and-spend-more, fantasy monster.

"Having loaded Bill’s crevices up with lard, we read today that this big butt-full of bills is now sprinting like a morbidly obese walrus for the finish line, but is likely to die of a heart attack before it arrives ...

"Meanwhile, the bill’s tab [has] ballooned like a post-tax-cut deficit, possibly adding trillions more than the already eye-popping $3.3 trillion House version. But hey, what’s a few trillion among friends? ...

"Despite the outrage, insiders predict the holdouts will do what they always do—complain loudly, wave a flag of fiscal doom, then wither like spineless tarts. After all, nothing unites Republicans like a giant tax cut and a promise from Trump that “this time, it’s gonna be beautiful. Really.” ...

"According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 'Big Beautiful Blob' has gone up from adding $3.3-trillion to the budget ... to adding $3.9-trillion. ...

"Even the CBO notes,

… these numbers understate the potential costs of the bill, since the legislation relies on a number of arbitrary expirations. Borrowing could rise by another $1 trillion – to $5 trillion or more – if temporary provisions were made permanent.

"Not only that: The CBO’s numbers also likely underestimate where interest costs will be after 'Big Beautiful Blob' throws its monstrous weight behind the damage tariffs will do to the dollar and simultaneously to the Treasury market because right now investors are still, as I wrote in my last Deeper Dive, hanging onto fantasies that more time for negotiation means more chance of tariffs coming down. That includes bond investors who have bought the bull. ...

"[T]ariffs will drive interest rates on the government debt up by diminishing the need for central banks all around the world to hold Treasuries as their primary vehicle for reconciling their member banks’ foreign exchanges on trade with the US. Less trade equals less utility for those Treasury holdings, which means less demand, so higher interest. A falling dollar also means less foreign demand for Treasuries because foreign investors lose money on the exchange rate when they sell the treasuries and go back to their own currency.

"That will all happen because Treasuries are effectively the money bags that exchange currency typically travels in via the click of a computer key reassigning ownership. There is still no one that I read who is paying attention to that likely trigger for the United States’ ultimate debt death spiral. Because no one is seeing it, there is all the more likelihood it will take us down.

"And, of course, the rise in Treasury interest means a rise in all commercial interest that is pegged off of benchmark Treasuries. 'Big Beautiful Blob,' throwing its weight onto the Treasury heap, only makes the problem worse. It also increases the risk that no one sees tariffs as causing the spike in interest rates because they have the Blob to blame as a scapegoat. ...

"This budget bomb is likely to be more obliterating to the US future than those bombs the US just dropped in Iran, which multiple reports are now saying were not all that Trump boasted them up to be."

~ David Haggith from his post '"Big Beautiful Blob" Keeps Getting More Bloated'

For once, Trump was decisive when needed [UPDATED]

[UPDATE: Facts have been revealed since Trump's statement revealing that whatever trust was place in him, it was once gain misplaced. See below...]

THE GOOD (OR MOSTLY)

For once, Trump was decisive when needed. And almost as authoritative in his statement afterwards as required. Almost.

A short time ago [he said], the U.S. military carried out massive, precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime. Fordo, Natanz and Esfahan. Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise.
    Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.

Clearly stated. The identification of Iran as the leading state sponsor of terrorism is crucial. 

[UPDATE: The identification of Iran as the leading state sponsor of terrorism is still crucial. Putting a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror remains important. .And the U.S. military did carry out strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime, Fordo, Natanz and Esfahan. All else is conjecture.]

Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not. Future attacks would be far greater and a lot easier. 

[UPDATE: No evidence has been tendered since as to the success of the primary objective. Evidence exists that 400kg of the nuclear material targeted was removed from the facility at least two days before the mission. Evidence about which Vance and Trump are thoroughly evasive. Vance admits he has no clue. Trump has no idea, and less interest, in the level of destruction.]

The claim that nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated is as yet unproven, and must be taken on trust. (Something in which this Administration is in short supply, unfortunately). Even with fourteen of 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs of the kind used on the underground facilities, doubt still remains that they would have had the capacity to fully succeed. Independent corroboration will hopefully follow, however (fingers crossed), and all being well will put an end to the kind of destruction a nuclear-powered state sponsor of terrorism could do.

And however ironic it might seem to talk about peace after a substantial (though surgical) military attack, the removal of Iran's nuclear threat—coupled with the destruction by Israel of Iran's proxies, should at least put the idea in any rational mind still left in the Iranian regime that peace would be a good thing going forward. 

For 40 years, Iran has been saying. Death to America, death to Israel. They have been killing our people, blowing off their arms, blowing off their legs, with roadside bombs. That was their specialty. We lost over 1,000 people and hundreds of thousands throughout the Middle East, and around the world have died as a direct result of their hate in particular. [UPDATE: This remains true.] So many were killed by their general, Qassim Soleimani. I decided a long time ago that I would not let this happen. It will not continue.

[UPDATE: The New York Times suggests a stronger motivation for Trump's decision to go was simple FOMO.]

A good reminder that, no matter the US's own desires for the last forty years, Iran has been at war with their "Great Satan" since 1979. So this response is not wholly either unprovoked, nor without justification. 

With all of that being said, this cannot continue. There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight’s was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes. There’s no military in the world that could have done what we did tonight. Not even close. There has never been a military that could do what took place just a little while ago. 

This is all very probably true.

Tomorrow, General Caine, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth will have a press conference at 8 a.m. at the Pentagon. 

No further corroboration of nuclear enrichment et al was given. Simply operational details.

[UPDATE; Nor has any been given since.]

And I want to just thank everybody. And, in particular, God. I want to just say, we love you, God, and we love our great military. Protect them. God bless the Middle East. God bless Israel and God bless America. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Boilerplate. But ("I want to just say, we love you, God") very strange boilerplate. Even at his most serious, Trump can't help but misfire.

The most important thing said here is that the world's number on state sponsor of terrorism has had its nuclear rug pulled out from under it. We hope. 

That this follows the defanging by Israel of Iran and its regime and its proxies around the Middle East.

That this followed telegraphed red lines that, for once, came with real consequences.

[O]ne thing that follows is that threats and deadlines from the Trump administration, unlike those from the Obama and Biden administrations, will be taken seriously in the future. Obama’s “red line” was bluster; Trump’s was not. He gave the Iranians a deadline and when they failed to comply, he destroyed [we hope] their nuclear capability.

[UPDATE: His unilateral announcement of ceasefires since, his flip-flopping from "Unconditional Surrender" to "God bless Iran," his childish tantrums over his grandstanding being ignored, have all overturned whatever gains were made.]

The unspoken topic not touched upon here is what happens now to the regime itself.

[UPDATE:  Trump and Vance could not care less.]

"After 46 years of this regime’s hollow bluster, we’re seeing the first light of victory,” a 45-year-old lawyer from a suburb of Tehran told The Free Press. “I feel the same way the French felt on D-Day.” Not a universal feeling, but neither is he alone.

Iranian regime change has to be on Iranians themselves. "Thanks to the benevolence and heroism of the Israelis, [they] now have an unprecedented opportunity to liberate [them]selves from the ideas and institutions that have enslaved [them] for nearly half a century." The best the west could and should do from here on is help make the argument on their behalf that it is necessary, and make the external conditions possible for them to succeed. 

[UPDATE: "Incredibly, a growing body of evidence indicates that a solid majority of Iranians have, in the last two or three years, come to reject their regime. I was shocked but delighted to learn that atheism is now an accepted position for Iranians. ... Ordinary Iranians no longer accept the theocracy’s legitimacy."]

THE BAD

"And here is our evidence that Iran's nuclear programme is an objective threat," said nobody. Nobody in the Administration even attempted to make the cogent case. 

That is a complete failure.

[UPDATE: And remains so.]

The only attempt made was Trump's curt dismissal of his own security advice that it was no threat. "Trust me, bro" seems the only argument tendered. [UPDATE: And remains so.] Yet Trump is far from the credible source on which anyone would want to rely in coming to judgement, let alone his chosen Defence Secretary.

Was the Iranian nuclear programme an objective threat? Probably. Did the Administration attempt to make the case? They didn't bother. [UPDATE: And still haven't.]

That's bad.

So too, probably, is the quiet suspicion that we might be watching a late sequel to Wag the Dog. After all, who's now talking about those Epstein files ...

THE UGLY

The Administration didn't bother making the case for there being an objective threat, as they should have ... and instead, earlier in the week, Trump's own handpicked National Security Advisor spoke to Congress in direct contradiction to the Trump case. "We have no evidence that Iran is building a nuke" said Tulsi Gabbard echoing direct Russian talking points, and suggesting her briefing came from somewhere further away than just down the Potomac.

And you'll remember that this president, like every other, swore an oath to preserve and defend the US Constitution—a Constitution demanding that only Congress can authorise going to war. Even under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. the president's strikes against Iran are "completely and unambiguously unlawful." [UPDATE: And remains so.] So there's that. 

The identification of Iran as the leading state sponsor of terrorism is crucial. One could only wish in other news to hear a similar condemnation of Russia as the leading sponsor of global disruption, nihilism, and European war. But one thing at a time, I guess. [UPDATE: Meanwhile, Ukraine waits...]

"Coal is expected to dominate the energy sector for at least three more decades"

"[C]oal is the backbone of energy production, supplying over 70% of India’s electricity. The dark evenings of my childhood have been brightened.

"Other developing countries have learned from China and India how coal jump-starts economies and lifts millions from poverty. Now, they too line up for their share of the fuel that sparked the Industrial Revolution.

"Global coal production reached an all-time high of nearly 9 billion metric tons in 2024. Chinese and Indian output continued to grow, and Indonesia set export records.

"India is on track to burn twice as much coal as the U.S. and Europe put together – possibly within the year – while China has already surged ahead, consuming 30% more coal than every other nation combined. ...

"Coal shipments to Southeast Asia are on a steady climb ... Rising production of South American crude steel will increase demand for metallurgical coal ... African energy production [is] on the rise ... Even the U.K. government, while still parading its 'net zero' credentials, is, nonetheless, procuring [imported] coking coal to keep British Steel alive ... In the U.S., President Trump has prioritised coal under a new executive order ...

"Coal is expected to dominate the energy sector for at least three more decades, barring a disruption by rapid innovation that would enable its economical displacement. Similarly, the mineral will continue to play a crucial role in iron and steel production absent development of a viable alternative.

"Predictions to the contrary are just so much hot air – largely from those most averse to a warming atmosphere."

~ Vijay Jayaraj from his post 'Big, Beautiful Coal Here for Many More Years Despite ‘Green’ Demonisation'

"Government immigration restrictions are how tyranny will come to modern America."

Two weeks ago Cato's Alex Nowrasteh debated comedian Dave Smith at NY's Soho Forum on the resolution “Government restrictions on the immigration of peaceful and healthy people make sense from a libertarian standpoint, especially in present-day America."

Alex was on the negative side.

He began by arguing that government immigration restrictions are how tyranny will come to America.

As he says below, "I didn't expect it to happen so quickly."

CLICK to watch (15 min.)

"Trump might see several advantages to engineering a dramatic showdown in a city and state run by his political enemies."

"President Trump has deployed the National Guard, along with several hundred marines, to Los Angeles — despite the objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom. ... the first time a president has invoked this authority since Lyndon Johnson sent them in to protect civil rights protesters in Alabama in 1965... The circumstances in Trump’s case are dramatically different, and it’s far from clear that his decision meets the legal standard for federalising Guard troops. ... The protests over the weekend weren’t even particularly large, numbering in the hundreds, rather than the thousands, most of whom were demonstrating peacefully. ...Trump’s response was unprecedented in recent American history. ...

"Trump might see several advantages to engineering a dramatic showdown in a city and state run by his political enemies.

"He also probably wants to posture for his base as a tough and decisive leader. ... The incentive to pander to his base might be particularly strong in this case because the underlying issue is immigration. ... but his administration has struggled to deport anything like th[e millions promised] By sending the marines to Los Angeles to stop protesters from blocking ICE vans, perhaps Trump is seeking to symbolically compensate for the gap between rhetoric and reality.

"There are other plausible explanations which are far more disturbing. Is Trump hoping that inflaming tensions will provoke a violent response from Angelenos extreme enough to justify seizing further emergency powers? Or could it be a trial balloon: an opportunity for Trump to gauge how much authoritarianism he can get away? That would fit the pattern of the rest of his second term, during which he has sent deportees to a prison in El Salvador without trial, and ignored a judge’s explicit order to turn back deportation flights that were already in the air. ...

"Something similar might be going on here. While senior White House aide Stephen Miller has explicitly used the word 'insurrection' to describe events in Los Angeles, Trump has so far stopped short of using the i-word. ...Even so, this sets a precedent: that marines can be sent to sites of domestic unrest. And this might make the public and the press a bit less rattled if Trump ever does invoke the Insurrection Act in the future.

"Trump, though, tends to act on impulse. Few presidents have been lessconsistent in their decision making: administration officials and advisors come and go, the President’s moods change, and everyone has to scramble to keep up. But while he fumbles in the dark, acting on instinct, many of those instincts are deeply authoritarian. Testing how far he can push the limits of presidential power is par for the course."

~ Ben Burgis from his op-ed 'Trump is testing Los Angeles'

"This pork-filled Bill is a disgusting abomination."

"Jamie Dimon warns ... the bloated US debt coupled with the irresponsible disability of [the US] congress to even face up to what a trillion dollars in interest each year means, assures the bond vigilantes will be busting up business-as-usual.

"Dimon opened his remarks talking about Reagan, who sounded the alarm about the national debt back in the early 1980s when America’s debt to GDP ratio was just 35%. Today it’s 122%. And with each passing year the number becomes even worse.

"Dimon warned the audience that 'tectonic plates are shifting,' referring to America’s status as the dominant superpower in the world—which is rapidly slipping.

"'The amount of mismanagement is extraordinary, he said. America has added $10 trillion to the national debt in just five years… and for what benefit? Is the country $10 trillion better off? Did any of that $10 trillion improve the lives of anyone who isn’t in Washington DC?'

"Just covering the interest payments on the national debt now costs taxpayers more than $1 trillion per year. And if the current trend on rates and deficit spending hold, it will reach $2 trillion per year by 2028.

"So, a level of debt that has already caused all major credit agencies to downgrade US credit is on a path to double its cost by the end of President Trump’s term, and yet congress is proposing a behemoth bill Elon Musk, again, described today as a 'disgusting abomination' that will explode federal budget deficits ...

"Musk had earlier said that [Trump's] Big Beauteous Bill undermines everything DOGE set out to accomplish. ...

"Does this porker look like a big winner, sprawling across the US bond universe with his puddling fat? I’ll side with Musk: this pork-filled Bill is a disgusting abomination."

~ David Haggith from his post 'From Bonds to Big Beautiful Bill, We're Going Bust'

"The gravity of what happened in Yemen will only assert itself once the political class is ready to deal with the new world we are now living in"

"As the appetite for ground warfare has waned, the allure of quick, cheap and easy air campaigns has grown. But air warfare is no longer what it once was. [Trump's] Operation Rough Rider [against the Houthis holding the Suez to ransom] was supposed to be a decisive show of force against an under-equipped, internally divided third-world nation. Instead, it ended up looking like the last hurrah of a truly antiquated form of warfare, unable to cope with cheaper and better anti-air weapon systems.

"All of these limitations make the current talk about a new bombing campaign against Iran utterly surreal. ... 

"With exploding deficits, a growing internal political crisis, and a slowly collapsing military, America is a leopard that lacks the wherewithal to even attempt to change its spots. The generals know that the jig is up: the old model is broken, there is no new model coming, and nobody has the energy left to do much about it all. ...

"The gravity of what happened in Yemen will only assert itself once the political class is ready to deal with the new world we are now living in: one in which the US has no new military rabbits to pull out of its hat, and those that it does have simply aren’t enough to get anywhere close to victory."

~ Malcolm Kyeyune from his post 'America's military humiliation'

"The question was posed, 'Why do people continue supporting Trump no matter what he does?'"

"The question was posed, 'Why do people continue supporting Trump no matter what he does?' A lady named Bev answered it this way:

“'You all don't get it. I live in Trump country, in the Ozarks in southern Missouri, one of the last places where the KKK still has a relatively strong established presence.

    "'They don't give a shit what he does. He's just something to rally around and hate liberals. That's it, period.
    "'He absolutely realises that and plays it up. They love it. He knows they love it.
    "'The fact that people act like it's anything other than that proves to them that liberals are idiots, all the more reason for high fives all around.
    "'If you keep getting caught up in 'why do they not realise this problem' and 'how can they still back Trump after this scandal,' then you do not understand what the underlying motivating factor of his support is. It's fuck liberals, that's pretty much it.
    "'Have you noticed he can do pretty much anything imaginable, and they'll explain some way that rationalises it that makes zero logical sense?
    "'Because they're not even keeping track of any coherent narrative, it's irrelevant. The only relevant thing is: fuck liberals.

    "'Trust me; I know firsthand what I'm talking about.
    "'That's why they just laugh at it all because you all don't even realise they truly don't give a fuck about whatever the conversation is about.
    "It's just a side-mission story that doesn't matter anyway.
    "'That's all just trivial details — the economy, health care, whatever.
    "'Fuck liberals. ...

    "'Look at the issue with not wearing the masks.
    "'I can tell you what that's about. It's about exposing fear. They're playing chicken with nature, and whoever flinches just moved down their internal pecking order, one step closer to being a liberal. ...

    "'They consider liberals to be weak people that are inferior, almost a different species, and the fact that liberals are so weak is why they have to unite in large numbers, which they find disgusting, but it's that disgust that is a true expression of their natural superiority.
    "'Go ahead and try to have a logical, rational conversation with them. Just keep in mind what I said here and be forewarned.”

~ post by Volodymyr Vlad Kunko

Elton John: A.I. copyright changes are "criminal" — "committing theft" from artists.

It's been a very long time since I've praised Elton John ...

.... okay, in truth I've never praised the bald, bland, over-played jingle-maker.

But this morning, I come to praise Mr John, not to berate him.

The issue is so-called artificial intelligence (AI). And the rights of "content creators," from whose content the "learning models" steal without either attribution or payment.

The US is facing what Trump calls a "Big Beautiful Bill" that will add a staggering $3.8 trillion to the national debt. It also includes a 10-year exemption from regulation for artificial intelligence (AI)— a "safe harbour [that] would give Big Tech another free ride on the backs of artists, authors, consumers, all of us and our children." (No coincidence that Trump fired Shira Perlmutter, the Register of Copyrights, "less than a day after she refused to rubber-stamp Elon Musk’s efforts to mine troves of copyrighted works to train AI models." This, just after the Copyight Office finalised their report they've been making for 2+ years, concluding that Generative AI trained on Copyrighted works is probably NOT "Fair Use." )

Similar legal protection for theft of copyrighted works is being introduced in the UK, where Elton John has (correctly) branded proposed AI copyright changes there as "criminal" and accused officials (again, correctly) of "committing theft" from artists.

Should the government proceed with the plans allowing AI firms to use artists' content without paying, they would be "committing theft, thievery on a high scale," the music legend said. 

He's right, you know. Exempting 'Big Tech' from complying with copyright law simply hands the creative output of every individual to AI companies. 

For free.

"The danger is for young artists, they haven't got the resources to keep checking or fight big tech," John said in a BBC interview on Sunday. "It's criminal and I feel incredibly betrayed."

Betrayed because he supported Starmer on the back promises to support young musicians. Still, it's the first time I've felt sympathy for the world-class purveyor of middle-class muzak.  Because even tedious tunes best used for sleep still need to be written by someone before they'e copied by a prowling plagiarising-information-synthesis system (PISS) — and, if the plagiarising process is legalised, then every creator's work becomes fair game for misappropriation,

John's statements come in response to a controversial proposal that would ease copyright laws in the country, allowing AI developers to train models on any creative works to which they [currently] have lawful access. ...

Concerns around artist permission and compensation guarantees have brought John alongside an alliance of artists to gather support in an open letter to help warn of how the government's planned changes could affect creators.

The artists are calling on Prime Minister Keir Starmer to back amendments filed by Baroness Beeban Kidron over the so-called Data (Use and Access) Bill, citing an urgent need for "transparency over the copyright works ingested by AI models."

The open letter was signed by notable figures like Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton, Kazuo Ishiguro, Ed Sheeran, and Dua Lipa, along with over 400 signatories from groups including the National Union of Journalists, Getty Images, and Sony Music Publishing. ...

McCartney told the BBC that the proposed changes could disincentivise writers and artists and result in a “loss of creativity.”  

The former Beatle said: “You get young guys, girls, coming up, and they write a beautiful song, and they don’t own it, and they don’t have anything to do with it. And anyone who wants can just rip it off.”

“The truth is, the money’s going somewhere … Somebody’s getting paid, so why shouldn’t it be the guy who sat down and wrote Yesterday?”

“We’re the people, you’re the government. You’re supposed to protect us. That’s your job. So you know, if you’re putting through a bill, make sure you protect the creative thinkers, the creative artists, or you’re not going to have them.” ...

In December 2024, McCartney ... signed a petition, alongside actors Julianne Moore, Stephen Fry and Hugh Bonneville, stating that “unlicensed use of creative works for training generative AI is a major, unjust threat to the livelihoods of the people behind those works, and must not be permitted.”

John told the Sunday Times that he felt “wheels are in motion to allow AI companies to ride roughshod over the traditional copyright laws that protect artists’ livelihoods." 

This will allow global big tech companies to gain free and easy access to artists’ work in order to train their artificial intelligence and create competing music. This will dilute and threaten young artists’ earnings even further. The musician community rejects it wholeheartedly.”

Last week, disagreements over the Data Bill raised concerns about whether AI companies should disclose the data used for training models, as legislators pushed for stricter rules to help creators determine if their work was scraped.

However, the House of Commons has rejected certain amendments proposed by the House of Lords, including those requiring AI firms to obtain permission before using copyrighted materials.

It's said that it's no big deal. That any man's work is public property. That artists have always "borrowed" from each other.

Artists have been learning from each other for centuries. When you create, you expect that other artists will learn from you. You learn from myriad sources, including active & passive learning from other art, studying textbooks, and taking lessons. Much of this you (or someone) pays for, supporting the entire ecosystem. 

In generative AI [however], commercial entities valued at millions or billions of dollars scrape as much content as they can, against creators’ will, without payment, making multiple copies along the way (which are subject to copyright law), to create a highly scalable competitor to the training data. It is beyond belief that people suggest these should be treated the same. I feel increasingly confident that people only use this argument because other arguments for gen AI scraping are, incredibly, even worse.

Jingle writer Elton John supported Starmer's election, and his alleged support for young musicians. 

Now he sees betrayal: “It’s really disrespectful, it’s really disheartening. I supported this government, 

I did a thing for them at St Paul’s Cathedral, when Keir Starmer said, ‘I want to help young people 

in the music business, I want to support them’ - well, he’s not doing it.”

As a creator himself, of tunes for which people willingly (and unaccountably!) pay money, Elton John recognises that the Bill “will allow global big tech companies to gain free and easy access to artists’ work in order to train their artificial intelligence and create competing music. This will dilute and threaten young artists’ earnings even further. The musician community rejects it wholeheartedly.”

"We're complaining about people's legacy, whether they're young writers, whether they're young playwrights, journalists, whatever; some people aren't like me, they don't earn as much as I do, but when they're creative and it comes from the human soul and not a machine — because a machine isn't capable of writing anything with any soul in it — [then you're going] to rob young people of their legacy and their income.

"It's a criminal offense, I think.

“I think the government are just being absolute losers - and I’m very angry about it, as you can tell.

“Big tech has so much money - and if you’re a young person and you’re fighting big tech, good luck. 

“I want the government to see sense; I want it to come back on our side. Because if they don’t, I’m going to feel like a suffragette.”

AI's developers have created something themselves. That's clear. But their creation, as they know, is an industrial-scale process for scraping copyrighted content, while leaving the artist's soul behind.

A hallmark of the AI developers is that they routinely discount, or even detest, the artistic soul, going so far as to both ignore it and then try to claim all of its enduring, exalted riches for themselves. They foolishly value mere money and market caps, whence, over the long term, it is the soul alone that is the best long-term investment, as the soul alone is immortal. It is the artist and creator who invests in the soul, it is the artist and creator who risks it all to express their vision, and it is the artist and creator who thus naturally and rightfully owns their art, and who owns the right to profit from it. ... 

“Hell is the soulless place where all art, music, literature, film, philosophy, religion, history, science, and poetry are generated by AI. Even Dante would be horrified.”  

The elephant in the room is that AI does nothing well, not even cheating. AI can only cheat as well as its creators teach it to cheat.

 

Q: Why do we need the concept of 'citizenship'?

"It's time for Ayn Rand's Power Question: What facts of reality give rise to the need for such a concept as X?

"Here, X is 'citizenship.' Why do we need this concept? Mainly, to determine who can vote. You can probably think of a few perquisites that attend to attaining the status of 'citizen.' But that status has nothing to do with the rights of man.

"The territory within the boundaries of a given country is the area in which its law has jurisdiction, the area in which a specific government, by its apparatus of compulsion, maintains a de jure and de facto monopoly on the use of physical force.

"We used to discuss whether the police, in a voluntarily financed laissez-faire nation, would protect the rights of non-contributors against criminals. The answer was: yes, mainly because the thug who would assault anyone is a threat to everyone, including the contributors. The 'yes' answer follows from practical, moral, and symbolic considerations. Defending the rights and freedom of everyone currently in the country is symbolic of a government devoted to justice.

"The same considerations that require the government protect the rights of non-contributors apply to protecting the rights of non-citizens. ...

"But due process and all the safeguards are there to rein in and make safer everybody who faces the possibility of government interference. The safeguards are there to eliminate arbitrary power.

"Government is potentially a far bigger threat than criminals.

"To introduce a preserve within which government agents can exercise unsupervised power is a threat that dwarfs that of any gang of hoodlums (citizens or non-citizens).

"And this is what we are seeing with Trump's every action—the quest for arbitrary power, unconstrained by checks and balances or anything other than the will of Donald Trump.

"If Trump doesn't have to follow due process in regard to non-citizens, does he have to follow it in regard to determining whether or not the person is a citizen? That's not theoretical. That's today's headlines.

"It can't be repeated too often: the solution to crime is not "screening" or "roundups" of anyone; it's repeal of the drug laws.

"It can't be repeated too often: the solution to lawless behavior by immigrants is not lawless behavior by the police.

"You can avoid a criminal gang; you can even move to a different locale. You can't avoid a SWAT team, the FBI, or any part of the state's apparatus of compulsion and incarceration."

~ Harry Binswanger from his post 'A sense of proportion'

A 90-day delay to fix what Donald Trump started

 

"MAGA—genuinely, explain the 'win' to me. The claim is this deal 'brought China to the negotiating table.' But… they were already there. We’re not further ahead than we were 90 days ago. No resolution. No structural wins. Just a 145% tariff that tanked the markets—now walked back to 30% so we can 'keep talking.' ...

    "I’m asking a specific question: what was actually accomplished here? We’re in the exact same place we were 90 days ago. No structural reforms. No resolution. Just tariffs that were hiked, tanked markets, and then were walked back during joint talks both sides agreed to in Geneva. ...

"Nobody wanted the tariffs. They hurt consumers and businesses. Reducing them helps—but that’s not a victory. That’s just undoing damage we caused ourselves. 

    "And wasn’t the whole point of this to force companies to stop buying from China and make everything in America? So how exactly is that going to happen now? Seriously—I’m asking. Help me understand what was accomplished.

"I understand this wasn’t a unilateral move. The U.S. and China both sent delegations to Geneva and mutually agreed to lower tariffs for 90 days to de-escalate the trade war. 

    "There’s no evidence China begged us for relief—this was a joint decision to pause and keep talking. To me, it just looks like a temper tantrum that backfired. No strategy. No plan. Just retreat, then spin it as a win.

"Dialogue and negotiation were already happening before Trump’s 145% tariff stunt wrecked the markets. There’s no 'position of strength' here, he lit the fire, panicked when it backfired, then called the act of putting it out a victory. He doesn’t have more strength now… 

"And no one’s demanding a full framework in 2 days, we are just calling out the fact that nothing was achieved except reversing his own mess. That’s not strategy. That’s spin. ...

"A 'Win'? China didn’t “drop” export controls—they paused them for 90 days as part of a mutual de-escalation agreement. That’s not a concession, it’s a temporary reset so both sides can keep negotiating. Nothing structural changed. 

    "A 'Win'? Our tariffs on China were 12% Trump jacked them up to 145%, tanked the markets, then walked them back to 30%. That’s not a win—it’s called cleaning up your own mess and calling it progress. 

    "A 'Win'? China’s tariffs dropped to 10%? Sure—after we started a trade war that forced them to hike them in the first place. Most of their original tariffs ranged from 5–15% and averaged 7.2% on key sectors. You’re bragging about partially undoing damage Trump caused. This wasn’t strategy. It was a tantrum, a retreat, and now you’re dressing it up like 3D chess, dipshit."

~ tweeter Agent Self FBI on the 90-day pause on self-inflicted harm