Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.
Author: Ian Welsh Page 10 of 438
Trump’s administration is routinely ignoring court orders. It’s often refusing to let attorney’s see clients. It’s not respecting Miranda rights. It claims the right to enter homes without warrants and routinely searches without cause. It’s violating habeas corpus every day. ICE and the border patrol (the border patrol is often lumped in with ICE, but many of the worst abuses have been theirs) are brownshirts or Gestapo, whichever analogy you prefer.
The Supreme Court has let most of Trump’s crimes thru, and Trump has massively increased in his wealth in just one year of the Presidency. Trump routinely blackmails Americans, forcing them to do what he wants or he’ll use the power of the Presidency against them
The rule of law is broken in the US. Law is not just about following the letter, though that level is broken, it’s about intent. The fourth amendment is a dead letter in America. Let’s be clear, it’s been in danger for a long time. The exception to the 4th amendment allowing warrentless searches within 100 miles of the border, which pre-dates Trump, was obviously bullshit and meant that two-thirds of the American population is subject to warrantless searches.
The rule of law’s obvious break-down began with pardoning Nixon. When Iran-Contra happened, the people involved had mostly worked for Nixon. They were not indicted. When Bush lied the country into war with Iraq his administration was full of men who had been with Nixon and involved in Iran Contra.
Biden pardoned his own son, an act of sickening nepotism which in a functioning country would lead to him being removed from office before his term end.
On the non-governmental side the crimes of the rich are almost never prosecuted. There was vast fraud leading up to the financial crisis, and no one was indicted for it. After the financial crisis banks systematically used fake signatures on documents containing fake information to foreclose on homes they had not right to. This was not just allowed, but encouraged by government.
The rich and powerful are almost immune to the force of law, but all along the effective rights of ordinary citizens have been under assault. Most people accused of a crime don’t get a trial and they are told that if they insist on one, rather than taking a plea bargain, they will spend much more time in prison. Mandatory sentencing laws have removed most of judge’s discretion and power has moved towards prosecutors. Step by step Mirana rights have been weakened by the Supreme Court. Warrants are often served without knocking, in violent fashion, and we all know that cops lie routinely on the stand and under oath.
Many of the worst abuses started overseas. Detainees were tortured, they couldn’t see lawyers, they have no rights. Thomas Neuburger makes the case that there is now a black site in Minnesota. What starts overseas eventually comes home.
The US is an oligarchy. An oligarchy where there is no rule of law if someone powerful enough wants to break the law.
There is only one road back from this.Mass prosecutions, starting at the top, with Trump and Vance and the cabinet members and family members who engaged in corruption like Jared Kushner and going right down to every ICE brownshirt who violated citizens rights and every prosecutor who went along. Every violation of rights, every major corrupt action.
Of course this means first that the Supreme Court and other parts of the judiciary which aided and abetted by ignoring clear constitutional directives need to be impeached and removed and if possible then themselves tried for crimes. Clearly draconian laws like the one allowing warrantless searches within 100 miles of the border must be repealed.
I don’t pretend that this suggestion is easy or likely. I think the odds of it happening are tiny. But it’s what’s necessary if the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and common law protections for for ordinary people are to mean anything. And it MUST include the powerful. If it’s just a few ex ICE agents getting their knuckles rapped it will mean nothing.
Precedents have been set for over 50 years now that the powerful can get away with doing almost anything awful to ordinary people.
End those precedents with a new one that they can’t, or lose all of your actual rights.
All rights come only from power. If you cannot enforce your rights you have them only if those with more power than you want you to. Every right that you allow someone else to lose, because you aren’t in the group losing rights, you will eventually lose.
More than anything else except stopping American participation in genocide, if I were American this would be my priority. Not even the economy is as is important, because without functioning and fair rule of law nothing else can or will work. If America, internally, is 100% “the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must” everyone in the US who isn’t an oligarch is cooked and even if the rich don’t realize it, so is America as a nation.
This site is only viable due to reader donations. If you value it and can, please subscribe or donate.
Carney gave an important speech yesterday, which you can read here. That lead to a lot of people praising him for his honesty in noting that the rules-based order was accepted by developed nations because they benefited from it, even though everyone knew it was bullshit: if you weren’t in the club, the rules didn’t apply to you. And even if you were in the club, the rules didn’t always apply to you, but most of them did and overall the benefits outweighed the costs, at least as far as our ruling class was concerned.
Carney points out that this deal has been violated in a rupture. The old world order is dead. People who say that it died in Gaza are WRONG. Mass murder of brown people in a non-developed country is acceptable to the rules based order. (It would not be acceptable in South Korea or Japan.)
But there’s something very important in Carney’s speech: he brags about having dropped taxes and that’s a clue.
Carney is clear eyed and honest enough to recognize the hypocrisy of the old system. He was a participant, but he was one of the rare powerful participants who was able to function and realize some of the injustices of the old system. He knew it was bullshit. Most people need to entirely believe in a system, they can’t handle the moral dissonance. To Carney the trade off was worth if it you were part of the Global North, and he was willing to live with that and participate in it.
Now long before Carney was Prime Minister I had criticized him. As a central banker he blew two housing bubbles, one in Canada and one in Britain, which massively hurt ordinary people and he bailed out bankers and rich people during the financial collapse. In fact, his performance in Canada was abysmal, in that it set up a new housing bubble basically immediately.
But housing bubbles are good for rich people. They get the benefits, not the costs.
And that’s the key to understanding Carney. He’s not a left winger. He’s not a post war liberal. He’s a neoliberal technocrat, and the job of neoliberal technocrats is to keep making the rich richer. It really is almost that simple and if you use that as your guide to their actions you’ll be right most of the time.
Let’s go back to those taxes. One of Carney’s goals is to reindustrialize Canada. It’s a real goal, he’s taking action on it, spending money on it and cutting deals pursuing it. But low corporate taxes and low marginal top individual tax rates undercuts that goal. The higher corporate taxes are the more it makes sense to reinvest earnings in production. If top individual rates are low, the rich want money cashed out thru stock buybacks (which should be illegal if you want industrial growth, because they too encourage wasting money that could be reinvested in production) or dividends.
You should also have high capital gains taxes on short term gains. Ninety percent if cashed out under five years, dropping 10% a year after that is a good benchmark, with exceptions for primary residences and a few other niche cases. Again, you want people investing for the long term, and this also cuts out a lot of the bullshit that happens due to stock options.
So if Carney’s only goal was re-industrializtion, and he was method-agnostic, not an ideologue, he would raise certain taxes rather than lowering them.
But he didn’t do that, because Carney, like most politicians and senior technocrats in our system, is a concierge for the rich. His job is to make them better off. They don’t want to be annexed by the US or to have to live in fear of a fickle US changing deals at a whim. But they still want to be super rich. In the old world order that meant having access to the US, because US returns were outsized compared to non-US returns. Every elite in every other country wanted access to US financial markets. But that access is not worth the price any more.
What makes Carney different from most current elite concierges is that he is actually competent, not a worthless courtier, and that he’s able to see the hypocrisies of the system. He’s self-aware.
I supported Carney in the last election and I still support him because while he’s far from what I want, he’s at least doing some of the right things. Enough of the right things to be worth supporting. That doesn’t mean I like him, or even think he’s a good person. He isn’t. But he’s competent and has enough guts to move away from the US. While he does so he’s making a lot of compromises like joining the Board of Peace. That’s an evil act and I’m sure he knows it is, being clear eyed, but it’s a minor evil act because Canada doesn’t have a potential veto on how Palestinians are treated.
I wish he was better and my support is very conditional. Perhaps I’m not as pure as I should be. Feel free to flay me in the comments. But a man who helps break up the American Empire, and that’s what Carney is doing by being the first to make a real break with the US and with his speech calling for the middle powers to abandon America, is doing enough to make it over to the “on the balance, more good than evil” book in my mind. Now if he had a veto on Gaza the way an American President does, it’d be different.
He doesn’t and he’s helping destroy the old world order while being by far and away the best current option for Canada.
We need better if we’re ever going to move back to a truly good economy in western countries or a more good than evil world order. Carney’s still a concierge for the rich. But in helping protect Canada’s rich, he’s helping destroy the American Empire and that will be good for billions of people, including Palestinians, and he’s protecting Canada from America and some of what he’s doing will be good for ordinary people.
Even if Carney’s motives for helping destroy the old order are crass, the fact that he’s doing so is enough for me.
This site is only viable due to reader donations. If you value it and can, please subscribe or donate.
I think this is worth posting in full. Once again Carney and Canada are moving faster than any of America’s vassals, which is fascinating because Canada is the most vulnerable to the US of all the vassals. But then, that’s why, plus some luck.
Carney was the UK’s and Canada’s central banker. He did a terrible job, blowing two housing bubbles. I backed him in the last election because he was saying the right things, and the alternative was a Trump style conservative with a room temperature IQ who would spread wide for Trump.
Carney spends much of his time in this speech pointing out that the old order was full of hypocrisy. He should know, he had to say all the mealy mouthed lies, you can’t have the jobs he had otherwise. But he didn’t have to say this now, he didn’t have to point this out, he could have just moved to the fact that there’s a rupture.
His point is that the old world provided a lot of benefits to many nations like Canada and Europe, and even though everyone knew it was in many ways unjust, if the price of admission was hypocrisy, then so be it. But that world is dead, the benefits are gone and we don’t have to pretend it wasn’t in some ways awful. We also shouldn’t pretend that world is coming back or that the benefits of that world some nations received can be regained by appeasing Trump and America.
As for Carney’s plan, it’s simple: the middle powers should ally with each other so they can’t be pushed around. In other words, don’t just switch vassalage over to China. But certainly do cut deals with China.
Every day we are reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry. That the rules-based order is fading. That the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.
This aphorism of Thucydides is presented as inevitable — the natural logic of international relations reasserting itself. And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along. To accommodate. To avoid trouble. To hope that compliance will buy safety.
It won’t.
So, what are our options?
In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel wrote an essay called The Power of the Powerless. In it, he asked a simple question: how did the communist system sustain itself?
His answer began with a greengrocer. Every morning, this shopkeeper places a sign in his window: “Workers of the world, unite!” He does not believe it. No one believes it. But he places the sign anyway — to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persists.
Not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.
Havel called this “living within a lie.” The system’s power comes not from its truth but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true. And its fragility comes from the same source: when even one person stops performing — when the greengrocer removes his sign — the illusion begins to crack.
It is time for companies and countries to take their signs down. For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, praised its principles, and benefited from its predictability. We could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.
We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.
So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality. This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct: we are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition. Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy, and geopolitics laid bare the risks of extreme global integration.
More recently, great powers began using economic integration as weapons. Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited. You cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination. The multilateral institutions on which middle powers relied— the WTO, the UN, the COP—the architecture of collective problem solving — are greatly diminished.
As a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions. They must develop greater strategic autonomy: in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance, and supply chains. This impulse is understandable. A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself. But let us be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile, and less sustainable.
And there is another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from ‘transactionalism’ become harder to replicate. Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships. Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. Buy insurance. Increase options. This rebuilds sovereignty— sovereignty which was once grounded in rules—but which will be increasingly anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.
This classic risk management comes at a price. But that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortress. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum.
The question for middle powers, like Canada, is not whether to adapt to this new reality. We must. The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls — or whether we can do something more ambitious.
Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture. Canadians know that our old, comfortable assumption that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security is no longer valid.
Our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb has termed ‘values-based realism’ — or, to put it another way, we aim to be principled and pragmatic. Principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter, respect for human rights. Pragmatic in recognizing that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner shares our values.
We are engaging broadly, strategically, with open eyes. We actively take on the world as it is, not wait for the world as we wish it to be. Canada is calibrating our relationships, so their depth reflects our values. We are prioritizing broad engagement to maximize our influence, given the fluidity of the world, the risks that this poses, and the stakes for what comes next. We are no longer relying on just the strength of our values, but also on the value of our strength.
We are building that strength at home. Since my government took office, we have cut taxes on incomes, capital gains and business investment, we have removed all federal barriers to inter-provincial trade, and we are fast-tracking a trillion dollars of investment in energy, AI, critical minerals, new trade corridors, and beyond. We are doubling our defence spending by 2030 and are doing so in ways that builds our domestic industries.
We are rapidly diversifying abroad. We have agreed a comprehensive strategic partnership with the European Union, including joining SAFE, Europe’s defense procurement arrangements. We have signed twelve other trade and security deals on four continents in the last six months. In the past few days, we have concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar. We are negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines, Mercosur.
To help solve global problems, we are pursuing variable geometry— different coalitions for different issues, based on values and interests. On Ukraine, we are a core member of the Coalition of the Willing and one of the largest per-capita contributors to its defence and security. On Arctic sovereignty, we stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark and fully support their unique right to determine Greenland’s future.
Our commitment to Article 5 is unwavering. We are working with our NATO allies (including the Nordic Baltic 8) to further secure the alliance’s northern and western flanks, including through unprecedented investments in over-the-horizon radar, submarines, aircraft, and boots on the ground.
On plurilateral trade, we are championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the European Union, creating a new trading block of 1.5 billion people. On critical minerals, we are forming buyer’s clubs anchored in the G7 so that the world can diversify away from concentrated supply. On AI, we are cooperating with like-minded democracies to ensure we will not ultimately be forced to choose between hegemons and hyperscalers.
This is not naive multilateralism. Nor is it relying on diminished institutions. It is building the coalitions that work, issue by issue, with partners who share enough common ground to act together. In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations. And it is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities. Middle powers must act together because if you are not at the table, you are on the menu. Great powers can afford to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity, the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not.
But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what is offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating. This is not sovereignty. It is the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.
In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: to compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact. We should not allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity, and rules will remain strong — if we choose to wield it together.
Which brings me back to Havel. What would it mean for middle powers to “live in truth”?
It means naming reality. Stop invoking the “rules-based international order” as though it still functions as advertised. Call the system what it is: a period where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as a weapon of coercion.
It means acting consistently. Apply the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.
It means building what we claim to believe in. Rather than waiting for the hegemon to restore an order it is dismantling, create institutions and agreements that function as described. And it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion.
Building a strong domestic economy should always be every government’s priority. Diversification internationally is not just economic prudence; it is the material foundation for honest foreign policy. Countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.
Canada has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower. We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. We have the most educated population in the world. Our pension funds are amongst the world’s largest and most sophisticated investors. We have capital, talent, and a government with the immense fiscal capacity to act decisively. And we have the values to which many others aspire.
Canada is a pluralistic society that works. Our public square is loud, diverse, and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainability. We are a stable, reliable partner—in a world that is anything but—a partner that builds and values relationships for the long term.
Canada has something else: a recognition of what is happening and a determination to act accordingly. We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is.
We are taking the sign out of the window. The old order is not coming back. We should not mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy. But from the fracture, we can build something better, stronger, and more just. This is the task of the middle powers, who have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and the most to gain from a world of genuine cooperation.
The powerful have their power. But we have something too — the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home, and to act together. That is Canada’s path. We choose it openly and confidently. And it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.
It seems that EU leaders have realized that the US can squeeze them, not just with tariffs, but with natural gas supplies. It used to be that Europe got most of its natural gas from Russia, till the pipelines were blown up, probably by the US. Now they pay much more to get shipped LNG from America.
Trump has hit European countries who oppose him annexing Greenland with increased tariffs. That’s not a big deal, but an LNG squeeze would be. It’s not that Europe wouldn’t be able to get enough LNG, if it wasn’t sold to them directly, they’d get it indirectly, just as they have continued to get a lot of Russian hydcrocarbons, but they’d pay more and energy prices are squeezing European (German) industry to death.
At the end of the day Ukraine is not a member of NATO or the EU. Denmark belongs to both. For Ukraine and the US, the Euros submitted to de-industrialization. They also sent almost all their weapons and ammo to Ukraine, and are damn near disarmed.
This policy is essentially hysterical, based on cold War trauma and driven hard by various Eastern Europeans and the Baltics.
But the situation the EU finds itself in is fundamentally simple. They’re de-industrializing. France is losing its overseas vassals, and with them cheap resources. They can’t get cheap resources from Russia and the expensive resources from America are controlled by a hostile and untrustworthy power whom it is impossible to cut a deal with. Say what you will about Russia, but they keep their deals and even after everything has happened if they were to agree to sell to Europe, they’d keep the deal.
Now I want to be very clear about the stakes here. Europe has no resources at scale other than farm goods to sell to the world. It has a very high population for its land mass, and its industry is legacy industry. When you look at tech lead lists, the EU as a whole is not even in the top four. (China, America, Japan, South Korea.)
To put it simply if they mishandle this the European standard of living is likely to crash by half in twenty years.
A deal must be cut with both China and Russia. Of the two Russia is more important. This is currently impossible because the Eastern EU nations will not allow it and the way the EU system is set up they have enough power to stop it from happening.
At the same time they are essentially welfare recipients, receiving stipends from Germany and France, who are the two real EU powers. Most of them should never have been allowed into the EU in the first place, especially the Baltics, who are undefendable and offer nothing.
Germany and France need to decide what to do to save themselves. If that means changing the EU or leaving it and forming a new association that’s what they need to do. They need to re-arm with their own weapon stack, not American weapons, and in the meantime they should probably buy Chinese weapons, but to do so they’d have to leave NATO or kick the US out of it, which, again, they’re going to need to do anyway, because, as the line goes, “the threat is inside the house.”
If they don’t sort this out and soon, they will suffer a catastrophic loss of standard of living. If that happens they face internal revolution.
The current EU leadership is some of the most pathetic in the world. Trained and raised as American vassals they just cannot understand that the world has changed. It’s not just Trump, Biden was draining them dry too, his administration was just smart enough to, as it were, “boil the frog.”
While the EU still has an industrial base it needs to act to save that base.
As for current tactics, what should be done is simple enough. Counter-tariffs make no sense. Break the DMCA and go after American internet and tech companies which make vast amounts of money in the EU. Force Ireland to cooperate. Let people break the digital locks on American tech, and give them right of repair. If it goes far enough break patents and start producing in the EU. (The US broke Germany’s chemical patents in WWI and basically US chemical industry is based on those broken patents.)
The other step is to stop EU money from flowing into America and force EU wealth to be used inside the EU to create industry and improve tech. The EU sends vast amounts of investment money to the US. Stop that, repatriate as much as possible and get to work with real industrial policy. This will hurt Trump’s real base, the oligarchs, and help Europe.
Europe must end its US vassalage and cut deals with its “enemies” because the US is a greater threat than China or Russia. And if the Eastern EU states aren’t willing to go along with this, cut them loose. They offer very little and are a drain on the actual productive parts of Europe. (Not just Germany and France, but Italy, the Nordics and the low countries.)
The Euros don’t have a lot of time to deal with this, there in severe decline that will end in, not just disaster, but catastrophe.
(And no, I don’t think they’ll do most of this, but there’s value in laying it out.)
This site is only viable due to reader donations. If you value it and can, please subscribe or donate.
Canada has cut a trade deal with China. This is what I have been suggesting for ages, and it’s finally happening. (Not, of course, because Carney reads me, but because it’s the obvious play and of all Western leaders he’s been the most resistant to Trump’s threats and blackmail.) Canada cuts a deal:
Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Canadian PM Mark Carney have announced lower tariffs, signalling a reset in their countries’ relationship after a key meeting in Beijing.
China is expected to lower levies on Canadian canola oil from 85% to 15% by 1 March, while Ottawa has agreed to tax Chinese electric vehicles at the most-favoured-nation rate, 6.1%, Carney told reporters…
…
In the deal struck on Friday, Canada will allow only 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles into the Canadian market at the 6.1% tariff rate.
The cap is in response to Canadian automakers’ fears of an influx of affordable Chinese EVs.
As well as relief for canola producers, there will also be reduced tariffs on Canadian lobsters, crabs, and peas.
I would expect that if the Chinese are willing to manufacture in Canada we’ll give on other things. The limit on autos is to get China to manufacture here. US manufacturers of automobiles are no longer reliable and Stellantis has started to pull out of Canada, there are no major “Canadian” manufacturers, so US manufacturers they must be replaced. The 100% tariff on EVs was to please the US (Trump can’t be pleased), and to protect Canadian jobs. Since those jobs are now at risk and almost certain to be lost, well…
The BBC says this move is in reaction to Trump’s on and off again tariffs, but that’s only half true. I keep noticing this in much of the media, they talk about tariffs and not about the annexation threats and both are a factor. You can’t have your primary trade partner be a nation which wants to invade you or break you up with covert actions and color revolutions. Then, of course, there’s Trump’s comments that the US doesn’t need anything from Canada. OK then, if you don’t need it, guess we’ll have to sell it to someone else, and since that has to go two ways, guess we’ll phase out buying American cars and buy Chinese instead.
This will break the ice for many nations. As I have argued for ages, even before Trump came to office, everyone needs to cut a deal with China because it’s the rising power. It’s already the most powerful nation in the world in many ways, and it will be in all ways that matter in less than ten years. Perhaps five.
But it’s also that you can make a deal with the Chinese. They keep their deals unless you cross very clear red lines like supporting Taiwanese independence. Even before Trump the US did not keep its deals. As a Canadian I’m aware that America just ignored trade rulings against it in favor of Canada even twenty years ago. America is simply untrustworthy, they don’t really believe they have to obey even rules they themselves have agreed to. Trump is “ignore inconvenient rules on steroids” but pretending he hasn’t just ramped up an already existing American characteristic would be delusional.
It’s also worth noting that this is, in the words of commenter Carborundum, “seismic”. Canada has been extremely hostile to China ever since Justin Trudeau was elected, including arresting the Huawei heiress for America, slapping on those 100% tariffs and multiple other incidents. We did this in order to keep America happy, calculating that we needed America more than China. (I never agreed, but I was in the minority). Under Justin Trudeau we were America’s second most faithful lapdog (no one can ever beat the UK when it comes to lick-spittle toadying.)
So this is, if not a 180 degree turn at least a 100 degree turn. Carney said all the usual bullshit about human rights and Hong Kong, but they were pro-forma. They won’t get in the way of a deal, and I suspect that public scoldings and statements along those lines will become much less frequent. The issues will be given a nod when some journalist asks about them and little more.
Canada was the first of America’s lapdogs to make a break for the exit after Trump decided dog was on the menu. We’ll see who goes next. Because when Carney said that this was preparation for the new world order (down, conspiracy types) he was right: the old world order is all but dead, and everyone has to re-orient away from the setting sun of America towards the rising sun, China.
This site is only viable due to reader donations. If you value it and can, please subscribe or donate.
The IQ debates are, to me, tiresome. I’m pretty high IQ, not what I consider genius level (I’ve encountered true geniuses) but just under, in the one-in-ten thousand range. Which is to say, if I’m around 10K people I expect that no one is smarter than me, unless it’s a place that selects for IQ. At MIT I’d be nothing special.
But what I’ve also noticed is that high IQ, and I’ve spent a lot of time around high IQ people and reading them, has very little correlation to being right about the sort of problems which interest me. Virtually all the high IQ economists were wrong about, well, everything, for generations. Larry Summer is extremely high IQ and he’s reliably wrong. If you want to be right about something, find out what Larry Summers thinks, and you at least know one wrong view.
IQ is very good at following rules, even very complicated ones, at seeing correlations and at pattern matching. Without judgment all IQ does is get you to where everyone who shares your priors, as the youngs say (I call them axioms or assumptions), faster.
I also believe that IQ can change over time. The more you do of something, the better you get at whatever that is. Being good at economics makes you better at economics and the types of reasoning and math it uses. (It does not make you better at understanding economies, that’s something entirely different.)
And I think that IQ is only somewhat heritable.
Right now we’re in an period where the consensus among smart non-specialist is that IQ is highly heritable and most of this comes from the result of twin studies.
The conclusion is that these studies are extremely flawed and can’t be used to make the claims made. The twins were often placed separately not immediately after birth, in fact in some cases as late as eight years old. The effects of mother’s on babies in the womb is huge (smoking, drinking, lead exposure) and that’s environment, many of them were placed with extended family and almost all were placed with middle class families similar to the ones they came from.
This debate matters. High heritability means that certain families are just superior. Bessis has a good summary of this. (The current strong case is 80% heritability.) I’m going to quote him here:
Let’s say, for example, that you are a genetically average person. How much does that affect your prospects?
- Surprisingly, at 30%, it’s as if your genes didn’t matter at all. With an average potential, you still have a decent chance of landing at the top or bottom of the IQ distribution. Actually, in this specific random sample, one of three smartest people around (the top 0.3%) happens to have an almost exactly average genetic make-up, and the fourth dumbest person has a slightly above-average potential.
- At 50%, being genetically average starts to limit your optionality, but the spread remains massive. Had you been marginally luckier—say, in the top third for genetic potential—you’d still have a shot at becoming one of the smartest people around.
- At 80%, though, your optionality has mostly vanished. It’s still possible to move a notch upward or downward, but the game is mostly over. In this world, geniuses are born, not made.
This discussion is generally omitted by hereditarians, which is unfortunate, because it is the only way to clarify the stakes. There is a fundamental asymmetry in the debate. Heritability matters a lot when it is extremely high, because it then supports genetic determinism, but for the rest of the range the exact figure has little practical significance.1
Now while Bessis doesn’t go into it, what I find even more disturbing are the racial/ethnic version of genetic IQ determinism. I think they’re largely bunk (that’s another post) but many very smart people believe them. Koreans and Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than whites who are smarter than blacks and so on, and this is taken to explain differences in how well various countries do, not their history or their environment. Blacks are, in this view, innately stupid. It’s not that they were colonized and brutalized and that the environments they grow up in are harmful to IQ development, nope, it’s innate.
If heritability is 80%, well, they just “deserve” their fates, and there’s really nothing that can be done about it. (If IQ determines national success, which is also BS if you ask me. If it was that simple, China would never have had its century of humiliation and whites shouldn’t have ruled the world for hundreds of years when Chinese and Koreans and Ashkenazi Jews are so superior to us.)
It’s not, in this view, that Talmudic study and cultures that place an obsessive value on learning like Korea and China do, develop higher higher IQs, it’s that they start smarter.
Now, as with Bessis, I think there IS a genetic component to IQ. It’s not like it doesn’t matter at all. I just think other things matter too, and that IQ matters less than people think it does.
We may revisit this issue, though I’m unsure. For a lot of my writing career I spent a great deal of effort debunking bullshit. The problem is that it never works, most people aren’t convinced, it takes longer to debunk than produce, and there’s always more of it because the pernicious types of bullshit are highly funded. It’s hard to compete with entire think tanks spewing out garbage, and that’s the job of 90% of think tanks: what they believe is pre-determined, donors want “intellectual” arguments to back up what they already believe or what they want others to believe because it is beneficial to them.
If excellence, however determined, is 80% hereditary, then aristocracy, however defined, is justifiable. The best people come from certain genetic lineages and deserve their place in the world. Whites deserve to be above blacks, Chines and Koreans above whites, and Ashkenazi Jews are the super race. (As an aside, though not genetic, trans women blow Ashkenazi out of the water in terms of average IQ, which I find hilarious, since it means that the people who love IQ and think it’s determinitive, should love trans women.)
It also means that there’s one less reason to improve circumstances of the majority of people. The few sports will rise to their level of genetic fitness and everyone else deserves to be where they are and doesn’t need support to improve their excellence, since that’s determined by genetics not environment.
This stuff is fought over because it matters, just like the divine right of Kings mattered. It’s about justification of how society runs, or an argument to change how society treats different people. Material circumstances matter, but so do ideas. We are slaves to what we believe the world is like and what we believe people are like. We often act on those beliefs. As the sociological maxim says “things believed true have real consequences even if not true.”
Twin studies don’t show 80% hereditability because those studies were extremely flawed. That matters.
This site is only viable due to reader donations. If you value it and can, please subscribe or donate.