…Full Of Sound And Fury, Signifying Nothing

In his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump claimed he would end the Ukraine war in 24 hours. He won, but the first 24 hours came and went with Ukrainian civilians still targeted and killed—no action taken against Russia. In February, President Trump and Vice President Vance bullied Zelenskyy in the Oval Office to consider what he would offer for a ceasefire. Ukrainian civilians are still being targeted and killed, and no U.S. action against Russia.

In July, Trump temporarily halted arms shipments to Ukraine. Later in the month, he gave Putin 50 days to agree to a ceasefire, which he then shortened to 10-12 days. Ukrainian civilians continued to be targeted and killed, with no U.S. action taken against Russia.

In early August, the U.S. agreed to sell a billion dollars of weapons to Europeans to give to Ukraine. President Trump arranged to meet Putin in Alaska on August 15th to negotiate a ceasefire. Putin being seen as a great national leader rather than an international pariah, forestalling any severe sanctions, while the war continues, underlay his attendance.

As the two Presidents returned home, it was clear that Trump had failed to secure a ceasefire, whereas Putin had achieved all his objectives. Ukrainian civilians continued to be targeted and killed, with no U.S. action taken against Russia.

Somewhere, Trump got the idea that Putin was open to a NATO-like force on the ground and in the air that would keep Ukraine safe, even if it gave Russia vital defensive territory. European leaders descended on Washington on Monday to discuss the details of the peacekeeping force and to praise Trump.

Russia claims it went into Ukraine to prevent Western troops stationed on its borders, so it’s fanciful to believe it is suddenly OK now. Then all the attendees went home. Ukrainian civilians continued to be targeted and killed, with no U.S. action taken against Russia.

Now that a few days have elapsed, it’s clear Russia agreed to nothing, saying that Ukraine’s guarantors should include Russia and China, each with a veto. Any further meeting, either between Putin and Zelenskyy or one that also includes Trump, would require extensive prior groundwork. Ukrainian civilians continued to be targeted and killed, with no action taken against Russia.

Continue reading

Justice Delayed

Continuing the discussion of how the government can provide the structure for the beneficial interactions of its citizens. One of the significant differences between the government and the private sector is the sense of time. The latter values it, and it’s primary to any planning. The incentives in the public sector are often the reverse. The more time it takes, the more secure their jobs and funding. We need to pinpoint where this attitude impedes commerce and people’s lives, and find ways to get the government on board, whether it likes it or not.

In my last post, I showed how vital a fair legal system is to capitalism and a properly functioning economy. It’s alarming, then, that our court system is a major culprit in preventing us from reaching our potential. Operating at a glacial pace, our courts seem little changed from the 16th-century British courts, except we don’t don wigs.

William E. Gladstone popularized the truism, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” A widely accepted principle, but often ignored in practice, it’s also costly. The current lawsuit, V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, illustrates just how expensive the Administration’s tariffs are. Filed shortly after Trump announced “Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2, 2025, the Court of International Trade blocked their implementation on May 28 on grounds that the President exceeded his powers—a timely decision based on seemingly strong grounds, rendered before significant harm.

Given the extent of the damage that improperly levied tariffs would do if left in place, it would seem to a layperson that blocking their implementation until finally adjudicated is sensible.

Continue reading

Ballroom Or Royal Court

While we’re waiting for some possibly momentous news, such as the Israeli Defence Force finally finishing off Hamas in Gaza, a Russia-Ukraine ceasefire, and a court ruling on Trump’s Tariffs, it might be a good time to reflect on some rules for leading to better government. A few posts ago, I featured an observation of the poorest performing nations, which were the ones where the state allocated resources and selected winners and losers rather than allowing the market to do the job.

What is the purpose of government other than providing the framework for its citizens to thrive? This structure must begin with the protection of body and property from arbitrary loss. Whether it’s an invader, thieves, or the government itself, you and your property are safe from capricious forces.

One of our great blessings is inheriting the English common law and the principles of representative government. We codified and expanded on these principles. An American citizen can’t be deprived of freedom or property without due process, as enshrined in our Constitution and its amendments, especially the first ten. Rather than a supreme leader doling out favors either directly or through subordinates, people should interact without government interference as much as possible.

These freedoms resulted in heretofore unheard-of economic growth, first in the British Isles, but followed closely by the young United States. The closer other nations emulated these two, the more their people benefited.

If you lack the basics of food, clothing, and shelter, not much else matters. In countries that provide a framework where people are free to choose not only the basics but also much more. (“More” in the sense of my series”The Long Journey to More”) The nations where rulers direct the economy struggle with even the essentials.

Marxists and other progressives claim that the expertise of an elite class can lead us to the promised land. The “best and the brightest,” rather than people interacting, know better. Those comprising the ruling elite live well, but the rest do not. In Cuba, Venezuela, or Argentina, where the state directs the economy, living standards fell.

Continue reading

Topping Out?

Could we be at the apex of the second Trump administration? The president is claiming victory on every front. Major trade deals with the E.U. and Japan, among others, were announced, with markets reaching new highs. Everyone is bending a knee to the master of the deal. Everyone knows because Donald Trump is on TV around the clock, telling us how great everything is going. To hear him tell it, there is almost too much winning.

Just under the surface, one can see some big rocks that the Administration is approaching. Both Japan and the E.U. imports are subject to a fifteen percent tariff. This rate seems stiff and protective of our manufacturing industries, such as the automotive sector, but a closer look reveals a different picture.

Reason’s economic and trade writer, Eric Boehm, points out that our domestic carmakers are dependent on inputs from Canada and Mexico, which are subject to a 25 percent levy. Using lower-cost parts and materials, Toyota could build autos completely in Japan, pay the tariff, and still undercut our auto manufacturers. The companies and the auto workers are already complaining about the disadvantage.

71% of Toyota cars sold in the U.S. are made here. This production supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in the U.S. With the price advantages afforded by the agreement to produce in Japan, these jobs are at risk.

If the 15% rate is suitable for Japan to produce at home, the E.U., subject to the same rate, will find itself in a similar position. European auto makers also employ a large number of people in the U.S. The Street put it this way, “The Big 3 now has a similar problem with EU competitors, as their 15% duties pale in comparison to the 25% duties U.S. manufacturers have to pay to get their cars from their Canadian and Mexican plants.” 

Continue reading