“Let’s not pretend to be so naive to act like official deceit began on the June 2015 day that Donald Trump descended on that Trump Tower escalator. It was the late 1960s — the era of Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam ‘credibility gap’ — when the investigative journalist I.F. Stone famously wrote, ‘All governments lie.’ I became an opinion journalist because of my disgust over George W. Bush’s lies that drove the Iraq War. That said, the outrageous, Soviet-caliber falsehoods of the Trump regime feel much worse. These are not ‘plausible denial’ fairy tales to push an unpopular policy or cover up some dirty deeds, like Watergate, but a vast empire of Big Lies — easily disprovable, about everything from election results to economic statistics — with a much more ambitious goal of undermining the very notion of objective reality.” (02/12/26)
“A few presidencies ago, Washington politicians used boundless political and intellectual chicanery to drag America into a ruinous war. Thousands of Americans died and scores of thousands of Iraqis perished due to the official myth of Saddam Hussein as the twentieth hijacker. Last November, Axios published new damning information on the role of Saudi government officials in bankrolling the 9/11 attacks on New York City and the Pentagon. Private lawsuits against the Saudi regime ‘unearthed evidence showing one Saudi official — who acknowledges aiding two men who became hijackers — made a drawing of a plane and a mathematical formula that allegedly could have been used to fly into the World Trade Center.’ That was only the latest stunning revelation in a coverup that will celebrate its twenty-fifth birthday this year.” (02/12/26)
“The idea of credibility probably looms even larger in foreign policy than in economics. Everyone knows that you can’t trust other countries’ promises of good intentions, right? The reason, supposedly, is that national leaders are tirelessly scheming to advance their national interests — and will happily lie, cheat, and betray rival countries to do so. This, in turn, sustains the international deadlocks that dominate headlines decade after decade.” (02/12/26)
“In recent years, the Arctic has returned to the center of public attention: the renewed interest in Greenland, the progressive opening of maritime routes due to ice melt, and the claims over areas like the Svalbard archipelago are clear signals that Arctic policy will remain in the public eye. … These profound developments in the Arctic, evident in the renewed scramble for resources and strategic positioning, are naturally subject to a plurality of interpretations. Analysts might foreground military superpower competition, climate security, international legal disputes, or economic opportunity. I propose applying a theoretical lens often overlooked in public debate: Harold Demsetz’s theory of property rights.” (02/12/26)
“Once again, President Trump is steering the U.S. toward a perilous and unnecessary confrontation with Iran. In January, Trump threatened to topple the Iranian regime for violently crushing protests. Now, as U.S. forces amass in the Middle East, his rationale for pressuring Iran has shifted. Trump is demanding new concessions from the regime, including caps on Iran’s missile program and the total removal of enriched uranium from the country. He is also threatening consequences ‘far worse’ than last June’s Operation Midnight Hammer. The president’s ultimate goals in the region remain unclear, as are the military measures he might adopt, which could include airstrikes, a naval blockade, or even regime change. The risks of escalation are grave, with each side poised to misjudge the other’s determination.” (02/12/26)
Source: David Friedman’s Substack
by David Friedman
“In my earlier post I observed that the organizational costs of hierarchical coordination become larger as the size of the firm, the number of people being coordinated, increased. It occurred to me when I was writing it that there was also a pattern to the transaction costs of market coordination, that they decreased as the size of the market, the number of alternative sellers or buyers of the good being produced, increases. I did not have my thoughts on that subject well enough worked out at that point to include them in the post, hence this postscript.” (02/12/26)
“Every aggressor would prefer that the other side yields everything without a fight, so it doesn’t mean anything when the president says that a deal is his ‘preference.’ No doubt he would also prefer that Denmark hands over Greenland without any resistance. Trump’s preference, as always, is for the domination and the humiliation of other nations. That is why his ‘good deal’ is a laundry list of things Iran will never accept. It is no accident that his diplomatic track record is extremely poor. Other governments have no interest in accepting Trump’s demands for their surrender. The president’s insistence on a ‘good deal’ is bad news for the U.S. and Iran.” (02/12/26)
“Immigration agents have intensified raids on construction sites across the country as the Trump administration pursues mass deportations. The raids often involve federal agents entering worksites without warrants, chasing workers, and detaining them (including U.S. citizens) for identity and immigration status checks. Now, the federal government is defending some of those tactics in court and asking a judge to throw out a lawsuit challenging them. In one such defense, the Trump administration basically argued that Fourth Amendment rights do not apply here: An attorney representing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) argued that federal agents don’t need warrants to enter construction sites, in a motion filed on January 29 in the Southern District of Alabama.” (02/12/26)
“A mere 15 years ago, during an epoch that now seems as distant as the Paleozoic era, an American president attempted to use military power to prevent a dictator from slaughtering his own citizens. Barack Obama billed the action in Libya as a humanitarian intervention, citing the new U.N. doctrine of ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P). The president hoped to avert a massacre by Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi rather than, as usual, coming in afterwards …. It’s impossible to know if the U.S.-led action did indeed prevent massive war crimes. However, the disastrous aftermath of that Libyan campaign — the summary execution of Qaddafi and a civil war that would kill tens of thousands — was yet more evidence that Washington’s attempts to police the world are quixotic at best.” (02/12/25)
