Tom Bernhardt on Trump shutting down USAID

Trump 1.0 promised to drain the swamp but was largely ineffective because he was naïve and got continually blocked by the powerful establishment.  I didn’t expect Trump 2.0 to be much improved.  I voted for him primarily as punishment to the Dems whose actions so deserved another round. 

But Trump 2.0 is surprising.  He came prepared and loaded for bear.  Maybe it was the time of reflection during the lawfare prosecutions, civil suits, impeachments, Russiagate, and assassination attempts, but something clearly changed. 

So he just did the best thing, maybe the best thing ever by any president.  Trump shutdown the mothership of discretionary and unaccountable corrupt power: USAID. 

For those that watch corporate news and think the AID stands for aid and other humanitarian goodiness; that’s fake, even opposite.  USAID is an extension of the CIA that performs regime changes around the globe, creates/supports political movements, funds compliant media for propaganda, funds a large area of bizarre unamerican causes, and generally acts as a money-laundering slush fund for those in power and their friends (97% vote Dem).  The result of the chaos they create is war, destruction and the death of millions. 

It doesn’t get any better domestically.  USAID, through its myriad of NGOs, funded BLM, which burned down American cities in 2020.  They fund Soros-backed DAs around the US that don’t prosecute many crimes, especially property crimes.  If you recall my motorcycle theft/recovery experience, this is but one personal example of countless around the country.

~ Tom Bernhardt, Facebook post, February 10, 2025

Cyrus Janssen on trade with developing countries

Just last year, China announced it would have zero tariffs for all developing countries around the world, cementing its position as the trading leader for the Global South.  Meanwhile, the United States currently has sanctions on one-third of the global economy, including 60% of all poor countries.  If I'm a developing country looking who to trade with, it's a no-brainer: China is the clear partner.

~ Cyrus Janssen, "Harvard Economist Reveals Shocking Secret About Trade War with China," Cyrus Janssen, 3:15 mark, February 9, 2025

Kim Iversen on AI lowering barriers to entry

What AI... really brings forward is the ability of the little guy to compete with the big guy.  And that's kind of what DeepSeek showed.  They're like, "We did this for a fraction of the money and we were able to compete with you."  AI, not just in the creation of your own AI, but even like you said with the creation of movies, for example.  The fact that a small team of creators can get together with like five people and create an incredible Hollywood blockbuster where normally that would take massive numbers of people, thousands of employees, millions upon millions of dollars to make a Hollywood blockbuster, and now that opens up to anybody to compete with these big businesses.

So the one really great change I see is that there seems to be a lot of monopolies in the United States with these big businesses.  They've dominated industries, it's hard for new people to break in, smaller companies to break in, and yet AI may be opening that path for anybody and everybody.  Much like the technology advancements that we experienced here with shows and broadcasting.  The fact that I'm able to do this and compete with mainstream news is incredible and even ten years ago wasn't even a real possibility, but now today it is.  The advancement is amazing.

Kim Iversen, "Are We Screwed? How China Outplayed the U.S. Overnight," The Kim Iverson Show, 14:40 mark, February 7, 2025

Paul Samuelson on correcting error

I hate to be wrong.  That has aborted many a tempting error, but not all of them.  But I hate much more to stay wrong.

~ Paul Samuelson

(Samuelson has one of the worst track records of among any economist, having predicted a recession after WWII and lauding the Soviet model during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.)

Tim Price on Trump's use of executive orders

Another dark cloud hanging over the political landscape is the, for want of a better phrase, imperial nature of the entire executive order process.  To an admitted outsider, rule by executive order fiat seems to run a coach and horses through the idea of a constitutional framework for democratic government, and the concept of checks and balances against Presidential overreach.  It also seems to refashion the Presidential role to something akin to a ‘primus inter pares’ amongst a cadre of philosophically and morally unreliable tech bro robber barons. 

But let’s not allow the best to become the enemy of the good.  Given what’s at stake, we’ll take robber barons over doctrinaire Communists every day of the week.

~ Tim Price, "War of the Worlds," Price Value Partners, February 3, 2025

Kevin Duffy on who pays for tariffs

All taxes are taxes on production.  Ultimately the consumer pays the tariffs, but that doesn't measure the true costs.  If there were 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs (there are, they were quadrupled under the Biden administration), no Chinese EVs will be sold in the U.S.  This harms American consumers without raising a penny for the government.  

Poverty requires no explanation.  Just go live on a desert island and try to make everything yourself.  Wealth creation requires specialization (getting the highest value for your time) and trading the fruits of your labor with others.  Trade, as long as it's peaceful and voluntary, is win-win.  Both sides benefit, otherwise the exchange wouldn't take place.  The more people we can trade with and the more they produce, the wealthier we become. 

In other words, tariffs are a tax on wealth creation. 

Economists disagree on a lot of things, but the case for free trade is not one of them.

~ Kevin Duffy, Facebook post, February 2, 2025

Charles Hugh Smith on the AI race, innovation and open societies

Charles Hugh Smith: A lot of people are saying, "Wait a minute, does this mean China has got the lead in AI?"  I don't think it's a state or governments-run option here to say, "We're going to control the world's AI."  I think the dominance here is which economy is more open, more transparent, more open to sharing information and is going to allow the greatest number of people to start innovating with these new tools.  And so that's really what it boils down to.

Adam Taggart: How weird would it be if that country were China.  It's just not historically, culturally, those are not adjectives that are used around China.

Smith: What's interesting is the whole world has an equal opportunity here.  There's systemic issues here.  It's not just the software or the hardware.  It's which economy, as a system, is more open, more transparent, more adaptable, more flexible and is going to give rewards to somebody in their garage famously that comes up with a product that people love.

~ Charles Hugh Smith, "Did China's DeepSeek Just Pop the AI Stock Bubble?," Thoughtful Money, January 27, 2025