Category Archives: politics

James K. Polk, a great president who did what he said and made America great

Leave a reply

One of my favorite presidents is James K. Polk. While running for president he claimed we would do four major things –and do them as a one-term president. He then did them, and left office — and died 103 days later at the age of 53. Mr Polk’s four stated objectives were: a reduction in the tariff, an independent treasury, settlement of the Oregon boundary dispute, and acquisition of California. Acquisition of California required admission of Texas, plus a war with Mexico and a cash payment, but he was ready. Settling the Oregon border required a compromise and a cash payment. But he did it and more. Modern professors are not happy with Polk, ranking him far below Obama, Kennedy, or Adams, but his aims were good, and he got hem done. Few presidents do that, and even fewer left office if they had the power to stay. No professor I know has ever willingly left if he had the power to stay, and didn’t have a better job to go to.

News from Mexico, oil on canvas painting by Richard Caton Woodville Sr., Düsseldorf, 1848. Polk was a god-send for newspaper sales.

I believe that the clarity of Polk’s four objectives was the reason he was a candidate at all, and the reason he won the election, and also the reason he achieved the objectives. There is a magic in clear objectives, repeated often, I find. It’s a formula that got Trump elected that few seem to understand: “Make America Great Again.” “Build the Wall”, “Drill baby Drill” “Deport illegals” “Tariffs. ” Like these ideas or not, you know Trump’s aims. Also, you know that, if. you oppose them, you oppose him. Trump’s pastor, Norman Vincent Peale promoted this approach, one I’ve thought of trying myself. I suspect that Polk died so shortly after leaving office because he had no further goal beyond relaxing; bad water hurt him too.. I suspect that Trump will die shortly after leaving office too- from lack of purpose.

Polk wasn’t expected to be a candidate, but was a “dark horse”, ex-governor of Tennessee, who had lost his past two elections. Martin Van Burin was expected to be the Democrats’ candidate, but he opposed slavery, and most Democrats were for it. What’s more, he was opposing annexation of Texas, at least south of the Nueces River, and many Democrats were for, as were some Whigs.

Joseph Smith was shot multiple times while campaigning for president.

Polk was pro-slavery, as was the Whig candidate, Henry Clay. But Polk said repeatedly that he would annex Texas — all the way to the Rio Grande, “no matter what any Mexican said.” He also said he’d fight for California and all of Oregon too: “Fifty four forty or fight”. You might not agree with this, Grant did not, but you knew where he stood. And Polk said he’d serve only one term. Thus, if you didn’t like him, he’d be gone in four years. After a few ballots, Polk became the Democratic Party candidate, with George Dallas as his VP. Like Polk, Dallas was pro Texas – they eventually named a city after him. Clay was Polk’s main opposition, anti Texas, and more vague about everything else.

At first John Tyler, the incumbent, also ran against Polk, but when he saw he was losing, he dropped out to help Polk. Also running for president, 1844 was Joseph Smith, the Mormon founder-profit. he ran as an independent because God told him to. He was shot multiple times, and died while campaigning. Finally there was James G. Birney, the Liberty party candidate. He gained few votes running on an abolitionist ticket. It’s been speculated that Polk won because Birney split the Whig vote. My take is that’s unlikely: Clay was pro-slavery. Polk’s win, I think, was in the power of his clarity.

Map of the territory and war.

Once elected, Polk first moved to annex Texas, something he achieved with the help of expresident John Tyler. Tyler sent his Secretary of State, Abel Upsher to negotiat an annexation treaty with Sam Houston, but the Whig-controlled congress rejected it. After the election, Tyler resubmitted the treaty to the new, Democrat-controlled congress, and got two versions passed. The house passed a pro-slavery version, while the senate, pushed by Thomas Hart Benton (a favorite of mine) produced an annexation treaty that divided Texas in half, with a pro-slave and an anti-slave half. Polk liked the pro-slave, House version, returning it to Texas in his first week in office. He instructed the Texas legislature to accept it unconditionally, with no change so he could submit it directly to the Senate. The Texans did so, and congress approved this version later that year. Texas entered the union as one, large, slaveholder state.

With annexation not yet ratified by congress, Polk sent a diplomatic mission to buy California from Mexico along with all of the disputed Texas territory and everything in between for $25 million. Mexico refused, so Polk invited war. He sent 4000 soldiers into disputed Texas territory south of the Nueces River, under command of General Zachary Taylor. Mexican forces attacked them in April 1846, and Polk declared war. The war lasted to 1848, winning all the desired lands including California, and achieving a release of any rights Mexico might have on Oregon.

Polk, as governor of Tennessee

The next Polk goal was resolution of the Oregon dispute, ideally with us getting all of it: land that included the current states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, plus the Canadian Provence of British Columbia. Britain and Russia also claimed this land, so Polk’s first step was to buy off Russia. The British said they’d fight, noting that they had a larger army and navy and that the US was already at war with Mexico. Polk’s response was to back settlers going to Oregon. Americans had started migrating to Oregon in 1843. In his inaugural address, 1845, Polk said he would defend them “against the British and Indians.” By 1846 Britain recognized the difficulty of fighting US settlers so far from home. On June 15, they agreed to a deal that split the territory along the 49th parallel, giving the US the lower half, except for Vancouver Island, thus allowing Britain an opening to the sea. This deal had been proposed by Edward Everett, Tyler’s minister in London. Polk gave up nothing, beyond an informal agreement to lower tariffs on British goods, something he aimed to do anyway. It’s generally thought that Polk’s willingness for war allowed him to achieve so much without fighting. Polk said, in his inaugural, March 1845: “The world has nothing to fear from military ambition in our government,” a statement that clearly means the opposite of what it claims to say.

Polk’s third goal was lowering the “Black Tariffs”. High and uneven, they were 32% on average, with cut-outs to help specific, northern businesses. Polk’s secretary of the treasury, Robert Walker negotiated a flat advalorum tariff of 25%, with luxury goods, tobacco and alcohol tariffed higher. The “Walker tariff” bill was passed July, 1846, one month after the Oregon agreement. The British, reduced their “corn tariffs” against US grain, benefitting both countries. Our tariffs average 17%, currently, with many cut-outs. I think our tariffs should be more like the Walker tariff, perhaps 20% and simpler.

Polk’s 4th campaign promise was establishing an independent treasury. This was done to weaken “pet” banks, and stabilize the economy. The treasury would now hold all US assets; they would issue most currency, and would pay people directly, either in specie (gold or silver) or notes of debt. Independent banks could still issue notes, but only in amounts over $20. Polk passed this bill August 6, 1846, one week after the Walker Tariff bill. With this, Polk had already achieved all of his goals except California by the mid-term elections, 1846.

Having achieved so much, Polk set out to buy Cuba, but Spain said no. Some other accomplishments: opening the U.S. Naval Academy and the Smithsonian Institution, overseeing the groundbreaking for the Washington Monument, and the issuance of the first United States postage stamp. By the summer of 1848 Polk confirmed that he was satisfied and would not run for re-election. In his address to congress, December 1848, he said, “Peace, plenty, and contentment reign throughout our borders, and our beloved country presents a sublime moral spectacle to the world.” …. “I am heartily rejoiced that my term is so near its close. I will soon cease to be a servant and will become a sovereign.” I trust that was met with applause.

Robert Buxbaum. February 6, 2026. Edward Everett would go on to make the better received speech at Gettysburg. The officer who commanded the 4000 man Texas force, Zachary Taylor, became president in 1849. Like Polk, he died of bad water with too little alcohol added.

Fentanyl deaths are way down, maybe justifying drug-runner attacks. We’re still 10x worse than Europe.

Leave a reply

For the past few months, the US navy has been attacking drug-running boats from Venezuela. Videos show ships trying to run away with packages pushed overboard before the sailors are captured or killed. It’s claimed that the packages contained fentanyl, a deadly synthetic heroin. At the same time, there has been a dramatic drop in the rate of fentanyl deaths. Based on the graph above, it seems that some 1500 US lives were saved per month, from fentanyl death alone.

2023 from the Harlem Coalition. There are far more US drug overdose deaths than firearm or vehicle deaths/year.

Opioid overdose deaths have exceeded gun or vehicle deaths since 2005. But there has been a big uptick since the introduction of synthetic opioids, about 2014. Fentanyl is now the leading cause of overdose deaths, alone outpacing gun and vehicle deaths, see graph.

It’s not clear that the attacks on the boats is a primary reason for the drop in deaths, by the way. A lot of credit goes to seizures at the Mexico and Canada border, including the decrease in migrant passage. Some of those were “mules”, carrying drugs. Improved screening at the border seems to have help stop the mules. In 2025, the DEA seized over 47 million fentanyl-laced pills and nearly 10,000 pounds of fentanyl powder, some made in the US, some brought in, cross-border.

An other positive change is increased screening of small packages, of value under $800. They previously entered the US, tariff free, at reduced postage rates. Chinese companies could send 2 oz packages to customers here for 70¢, cheaper than Americans could ship cross town. The DEA reports that most of the precursor chemicals enter the US in packages from China. More checking, and help from China, means fewer of these chemicals get in.

Before we compliment ourselves, our drug numbers are still vastly too high, about 70,000 overdose deaths in 2025, a vastly higher rate than in Europe or Japan, see chart below. The reason is, in my opinion, that we are over-diagnosed and over-medicated. We see ads for drugs on TV, magazines telling us to ask for a pill for any pain or discomfort. They’re all addictive. Doctors are happy to comply, and when the prescription stops, or stops being effective, you’re a hooked customer for heroin or fentanyl.

Addiction has become a middle-aged problem affecting mostly those 25 to 45. It’s made US lifespan significantly shorter. Doctors are curing the pain and killing us patients. Magazines, TV, and drug companies, too. Europe has stricter regulations on pills with fewer prescriptions allowed, no drug ads, and no automatic refills. Does everyone over 50 need blood pressure meds, for example.

Robert Buxbaum, January 26, 2026

Will a cut-off in oil to China spark war?

1 Reply

China is likely the largest economy in the world, 11% lager than the US calculated here based on food purchasing parity They also have a larger army and navy, 754 ships vs 440, with military ambitions for Taiwan and new, man-made islands in the China sea. They continue to add aircraft carriers and submarines (we’re still ahead there), but China fuels all this with oil. They use some 17 million barrels per day: 11.3 million imported by ship, and put another million bb//day per into reserve in case there is a shutoff.

A problem for China is that their internal production, 4.5million bbl/day, is far below their consumption, a big vulnerability. One of their main suppliers, Venezuela, just went off line, sending 800,000 bbl/day of oil to the US that would have gone to China. Two other of their major, sanctioned suppliers, Iran and Russia have had delivery issues too; a disruption in oil could cause a revolt in China. Perhaps this fear will drive China to war with us, similar to the way that a cut off in oil caused Japan went to go to war with us in WWII, see table below. Japan had the choice of war or shutting down their economy and ambitions. Perhaps China may choose the same if Iran and/or Russia goes off-line. That was my worry, I’m no longer that concerned.

This shows how dependent Japan was on foreign oil, before and during WWII. The cut off of imports sues them to attack Pearl Harbor, source = Sarah Paine, military historian

Currently, China buys most of its imported oil from four countries: Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq; two of these are under sanction. China used to get another 0.8 million barrels per day from Venezuela, another country under sanction, but that route was closed by Trump last week. Buying from sanctioned countries saves them significantly, and supports the BRICS alliance, an alliance specifically against the US (NAFTA?) and the EU. The money they pay to Russia and Iran supports the war against Ukraine, plus ISIS’, war against us, and the mullahs oppression in Iran.

Oil production worldwide, 2024. How much China buys from each varies month to month.

China was buying, from Russia, some 2.2 million barrels of oil and refined products, plus natural gas and coal (China is a big coal user). The rest of Russia’s output goes to India, Turkey, and the EU. The EU buys more than half of eastern Russia’s natural gas output, shamefully it has likely kept Germany from collapsing. The problem for China is that Russian production is under attack from Ukraine. Ukraine sank or disabled several Russian tankers, and we took some more; they’ve blown up pumping stations, including three on the Caspian Sea, set fire, to a large liquid natural gas terminal and damaged the major off-load platform for Kazakh oil. According to the Foundation for Democracy report, here, by October 2025, China was down to getting only 800,000 bbl/day from Russia, a major blow, and Ukraine’s attacks continue.

Some dark fleet ships captured by the US navy off of Venezuela, on their way to China with sanctioned oil.

Iran is another major supplier under attack. Up until recently they provided nearly 2 million barrels of oil per day, 90% of Iran’s seaborne export. Much of that went indirectly, going to Indonesia, turkey, Iraq, and Kuwait where it was relabeled, blended or refined to avoid sanction penalties. Everyone makes a profit here, but Iran is in the midst of a revolution. Last week, Trump imposed an across-the board 25% additional tariff on counties that help Iran avoid the sanctions. My guess is that this tariff will be effective and that it will last until the revolution is over. His tariffs have been effective and profitable, it seems.

China has non-sanctioned suppliers. They buy some 1.6 million barrels per day from Saudi Arabia, about 1.2 million bbl/day, from Iraq, about 1.3 million bbl per day from Malaysia, about 700,000/ day from Brazil, and about 900,000/day from the USA. In principle, they could make up any losses by buying more here, but the price would be higher. Worse yet, Trump could cut China off. That would be devastating; it’s the reason China built up a reserve of 2.2 billion barrels amounting to 6 months of current use. Japan did something similar in 1941, building up a year’s worth. They then used all of it in the first year of the war, while conquering Indonesia, a new supplier. For all I know, Trump’s activities in Venezuela and Iran are meant to force a war decision on China before they are strong enough to defeat us. It seems to have been FDR’s logic.

China’s main way to address a possible oil disruption, as best I can tell, has been to push EVs development. They’ve financed some 500 new EV companies who now (late 2025) provide about 50% of new Chinese automobiles. Another 19% are hybrids. In the US, only 8% of new cars are EVs, and 16% hybrids. Large-scale use of EVs lessens the pressure on Chinese leaders to find oil sources, some 40% of oil imports can be assumed to go to fuel automobiles; if China were to go 80% EV, it would save 5.5 million barrels/day, more than it gets from Russia and Iran combined. For now, though, China has a big need for gasoline, and has a big excess in EV manufacturing. It has turned to Canada both as a customer for EVs and as a supplier for oil.

Last week, Canadian PM, Mark Carney visited China and announced a “Strategic Partnership” on Agriculture, energy, finance, and Global governance.” There’s no specific mention of oil, but it’s implied. China gets most favored nation status sending goods, including EVs to Canada at rates lower than on US goods. China will export some 50,000 EVs in 2026, rising to 70,000 by 2030 with tariffs set to 6.1%. US-made cars are tariffed at 25%. Canadians will get visa-free, tourist visits), plus a loan of $1B to be used buying Chinese ships. In Davos last week, “We are in the midst of a Rupture” away from the US. He urged the EU and other “middle powers” to band together. He talks like China is a good, reliable friend to Canada, and like the US isn’t. I would worry more about his comments and the “global governance” phrase, if the EU seemed to be going along, but it is not. Nor do I see a real move in China for war. I see positive effects of increased EV sales for China, Canada, and the world. Even if the quality isn’t great, Go Canada, go peace.

Robert Buxbaum, January 25, 2026. *The plan to attack Pearl Harbor was made in December 1940, a year before it happened and 9 months before we cut off oil shipments. We cut off oil shipments in September, following Japan’s invasion of Indonesia, done to take the oil there. While oil was not Japan’s only aim in WWII, it was an aim and a big participant at every step.

Trump’s battleships, right size, perhaps too late

1 Reply

Donald Trump has announced his intent to build at least two battleships, the first built for our navy since the USS Missouri, 1944. The press has been largely negative on this, claiming that these ships are obsolete already, and will be more-so when they are completed — assuming they are completed. My sense is these are useful, overdue really, and I’d like to explain why.

The George Washington Carrier with nine surface support ships.

The centerpiece of America’s military power lies in our aircraft carrier groups, currently. We have 11 carriers in service: two modern, Ford class, and nine older, Nimitz class. Each of these weighs 100,000 tons, is 1100 feet long, and carries some 6000 men and women, 3200 navy crew, another 2500 in the air wing, and perhaps 300 support staff of doctors, nurses, and marines. Because they are vulnerable, each carrier travels in a group with six to ten other ships carrying an additional 3000 people, see photo. Without the support ships a carrier is deemed to be too vulnerable for use. Even with the support ships, Swedish and French submarines successfully “sank” U.S. carriers during exercises in 2005 and 2015. 

The support ships are typically slower than the carrier and difficult to maintain. Many are old with relatively short range. Our carriers can go around the world, 30000 miles, traveling at 30+ knots, but the main support ships, Arleigh Burke destroyers, 9000 tons, 350 crew, have a range of only 4,400 nmi  at a slower, 20 knots. They require regular refuelings for any major mission, like patrolling the Caribbean. Still, they’re “cheap,” about $2.5B each, capable, and work relatively well. We have some 75 in service, built since 1991, with more on order.

We also have nuclear missile submarines, but these are blunt instruments of policy, not suited to most navy missions, like keeping open shipping lanes in the Red Sea or stopping ISIS, or for blockading Venezuela. The mostly hold weapons of last resort.

The navy has recognized the need for a larger support ship for better carrier protection and more flexible roles, a cruiser likely, with good range and weapons, and with enough speed to keep up with a carrier crossing the Pacific. We’ve built many cruisers over the years, but these are old. Our latest are the Ticonderoga class  guided-missile cruisers built from 1980 onward. They have good speed, 32.5kn, and good range, 6000nm, but are well past their retirement date, and break down a lot. Only 7 are still in service.

The USS Zumwalt at sea. Trump said it was “Ugly as F.”

The supposed replacement, was a cruiser-size, stealth ship, the Zumwalt destroyer, 17,000 tons and 600 feet long. It is reasonably fast, 33.5kn, and carries a small crew, <100. We’ve managed to build three of these since 2008, but have cancelled the project due to operational problems and costs that rose to $8B per ship. Zumwalts have inward-sloped sides that deflect radar, but they become unstable in turns. Its main weapons are expensive, too: Aegis missiles and CPS hypersonics costing $28-$50 million each. That’s uneconomical compared to French Aster missiles, Mach 3, 80 mile range, $1.1 million. Originally, Zumwalt destroyers carried a rail gun, but it required so much power that you could not move the ship and fire at the same time. The rail guns were eventually replaced by conventional 5″ cannon with a 24 mile range. The three Zumwalts we have are hardly used today, and no more are on order. Something cheaper was needed at least for support, and that was supposed to be the Constellation Frigate, approved by Trump in 2017.

A frigate is smaller than a cruiser, in this case about half the weight. The Constellation was a proven Italian design, 492 feet long and only 7,291 tons. It had good speed, 26 kn, good range, 6000 nm at 16kn, and cost only $950 million, at least when built in Europe. The contract was awarded to Fincantieri Marinette Marine (FMM) of Marinette Wisconsin, the US division of the Italian company. What could go wrong? The problem was that the navy kept adding capabilities and weight. As of November 2025, eight years on, the weight had increased by 700 tons, the cost to $9 B for two, and no design has been finalized. The first Constellation frigate is only 12% built! Trump has not quite cancelled the program, but has reduced the order to two from the original eight.

Trump-class battleship, as envisioned, with a rail-gun, lasers and two, conventional 5″ cannon.

And that brings us to the current, Trump class battleship, shown above. It’s long, 840-880 feet, and heavy, 39,000 tons, or 2.5 times the weight of the cruiser-sized, Zumwalt. As was intended for the Zumwalt, the offensive weapons are missiles and a rail gun, 32 MJ, but now there is enough power run the ship and fire the weapon. Japanese versions of the rail gun have launched cheap shells at hypersonic speeds, ~5000 mph (hypersonic) at a distance of over 100 miles and a fire-rate of ~one per second. The shells cost only $85,000 each, a bargain compared to hypersonic missiles.

For defense, these battleships are to carry two, 300kW, Helios lasers, similar to Israel’s “Iron beam,” but 3 times as powerful. They are augmented by smaller lasers, by four, 30 mm chain guns (Gatling guns), and two, 5″ conventional navy guns of 24 mile range. Engines are estimated to be two gas turbines, perhaps 50MW each of for acceleration and to power the weapons, plus ~100 MW in diesel power for cruising at good speed and mpg. I thus estimate a total of ~200 MW, about as much as on a carrier. There is plentiful space for missiles and fuel, so it should provide some resupply of support ships. The crew size is bigger than on the Ticonderoga, 600 to 800, but far less than on a carrier, and the look is impressive. A Trump goal is that it should be an attractive, command ship. Still, there are objections.

A main complaint is vulnerability as discussed here, the claim is these ships are “bomb magnets,” not stealthy, nor as heavily armored as the Iowas. Detractors claim that lasers and chain guns are insufficient for defense from drone swarm attacks. They note that the Bismarck, Yamamoto, and Arizona have been sunk, typically by air attack. What the detractors don’t mention is that it took a lot of bombs and torpedos to sink these battleships nor that these battleships will travel with support ships, while the Bismarck travelled alone.

Detractors also question the rail gun. Can it shoot down an airplane? can it sink a ship? The tests I’ve seen suggest that the rail gun can take out an airplane, but that it can not sink a ship, at least not with one shot. That still needs a missile, but the battleship does have missiles. The gun seems appropriate for shore bombardment too, even against hardened targets, and for dissuading actions by a Chinese navy that is already bigger than ours. As for the defense against drones, the battleship is to have high-powered lasers that have been shown to stop drones and cruise missiles at a cost of only ~$10 per shot. That’s nothing compared to a harpoon missile ($1.4 million each) or Aegis ($28 million). These are great weapons, and I don’t see a smaller ship being able to power them. Also it’s nice to have extra room for expansion — like adding a nuclear reactor.

The time-line is what worries me most. These will take ten years at least. Until then, we will have to rely on our short-range Arleigh Burkes that did not have the firepower to bombard the Houthis effectively on land, nor effectively defend US shipping in the Red Sea. Those ships had to use million-dollar missiles to shoot down $20,000 drones. I expect us to really need the battleships, even if it takes us ten years to get one.

Robert Buxbaum, January 5, 2026. As a totally side issue: some claim this isn’t a battleship. It carries only one gun, admittedly a powerful gun. I half agree, you need at least two big guns to be a battleship, IMHO.

Is China really a smaller economy than the US, but twice as efficient

1 Reply
The Economist has run this burger-metric of currency valuation for 40 years or so. I find it instructive.

One can buy a new electric car in China for US $20,000, roughly half of what it would cost in the US. Similarly, a good phone is cheaper in China, or clothes, or a Big Mac. A McDonald’s Big Mac in China costs, effectively $3.55, 59% of what it costs in the US, slightly less than 3/5 the US price. The Chinese explanation is that China is nearly twice as efficient as the US at most every type of manufacturing. I don’t believe this explanation, though there is some truth to it: Their electricity is cheaper, in part because they burn mostly coal for electric power. Meanwhile we have shut-down our coal plants, and have hardly built nuclear since the 1970s.

Another source of efficiency is that China arranges its manufacturing into dedicated cities for different products, one city for toys, another for luggage, others for cars, planes, hair driers… This helps efficiency but I’m not sure how much, and I don’t see these advantages applying to McDonald’s. There is no way I believe their workers are 5/3 as efficient as US workers when it comes to making burgers. It’s not like they ship the burgers from a central factory, and they buy gain and meat from us. My sense, then, is that it’s not efficiency that keeps prices low, but that the Chinese currency, the yuan is undervalued.

It’s hard to estimate how much their currency is undervalued, but I will use the burger-metric, above and say the yuan selling for about 3/5 its true value, and that this explains most of why Chinese shoes, cars, and clothes are so cheap. The rest of the price difference is efficiency, I’d guess. China isn’t the only country with an under-valued currency; Japan’s currency seems even more undervalued. Similarly India, Taiwan… The China is a bigger economy, though, and correcting the Chinese GDP by 5/3, I find their economy is yet bigger, about 111% as big as ours. By a similar correction, European economies appear smaller than they are given credit for.

Chinese electricity is cheap, in part because they burn coal. Also, their currency is undervalued; ditto for India, Indonesia, Turkey.

China’s undervalued currency helps propel its growth, I think, and provides us with cheap goods, but our industry suffers. Also troubling, China will likely surpass us militarily in 3-5 years. One way of slowing this is through tariffs. Trump’s tariff formula, as I understand it, was designed to preserve some China trade, allowing US consumers to benefit, but also taxing the exchange. I think this is a good idea.

Another proposal is to lower the US interest rates. Currently our prime interest rate is 6.5% while China’s is 3%. This provides an incentive for the Chinese industry to invest in the US, maintaining its undervalued currency. The benefit isn’t quite as large as it might seem since we have a 2.7% inflation rate and China has a 0.7% inflation rate. Correcting for this, our bonds return an effective 3.8% and Chinese bonds return 2.3%. The difference is about 3/5 similar to the mismatch in our currencies. Trump has been pushing the Federal Reserve to lower our interest rates, and The Fed has grudgingly agreed, slowly. A lower interest rate would also spike US industry and inflation, and help reduce the government deficit. Trump has also proposed new ships for the navy. Too little, too late, I think. Things should get dicy in the next decade between the US and China.

Robert Buxbaum, December 30, 2025. I started this post not knowing where it would lead. As I research and write, I learn. Perhaps you will too,

Rich folks aren’t taxed because they have no income; you can do some of this too.

Leave a reply

Two tax questions: (1) How do the top rich people manage to pay such low taxes, e.g. Warren Buffett paying at 0.1%. and (2) why do these rich folks campaign for higher taxes. Warren Buffett has campaigned for higher taxes for 50 years. These questions seem perhaps related.

I got my tax data from a public tax advocacy group, ProPublica. In 2021 they received the tax filings for many important people including the 25 US richest from the years 2014 to 2018. They find that these individuals paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income tax while their wealth rose a collective $401 billion, go here for more. Dividing the numbers, we see an average income tax rate of only 3.4%, with Warren Buffett paying the least, 0.1%. This is far less than the “half of the rate that my secretary pays,” that Buffett likes to claim.

The reason these people pay so little tax is that their taxable income is zero. They use a very wide variety techniques to do this. Among these are charitable foundations, including those that lobby for higher taxes and against climate change. The foundations buy private planes and send the founders (and their families) to climate change events in the South of France or Davos, Switzerland. “Pro-tax” foundations hire tax accountants to research ways that the rich avoid taxes, often the founders then use these methods while speaking out against others who do the same. Bezos was so successful at avoiding income that he got welfare payments in two of the five years, ProPublica found. Soros and his son got $2,400 in COVID payments. They had almost no income. The one tax all these folks hate is tariffs because it is almost impossible to buy new, expensive things from abroad while avoiding them. See my essay, “Tariffs are inflationary, but not on you.”

Another advantage of a charitable foundation is that 74% of your donation can offset capital gains. You have to itemize your donations, but If you give $1 million to your foundation, you can use it to offset $740,000 of stock appreciation earnings. Not a bad deal. You can also use any stock losses against gains. Thus, it’s a good idea, if you itemize, to sell some losing stocks when you sell gainers (while holding on to other gainers, of course.) All of this is only available to those who itemize, and it’s only the rich who benefit by itemizing.

Borrowing money against your assets is another popular tax avoidance scheme, one that ordinary folks could use (but don’t over-do it*). The scheme is often called “Borrow, Buy, Die.” You borrow a large sum against your assets (your home, your stocks, or options –Musk has lots of Tesla options, etc). You then use the borrowed money to purchase property, typically: a vacation home, rental properties, a hotel, or a car. If you structure the purchase right, the interest can be deducted from any other earnings you have including rents. You then have no taxable income, or a lower income while the property appreciates. You can often structure the purchase so that depreciation can be deducted against income as well. Meanwhile, you get to drive the car, live at the vacation home, or rent it as an Air B&B, or stay at the hotel for free.

You live this way until you die. When you die, your heirs get the asset, but they are not taxed on the appreciation. The asset is transferred at its value at the time of death. You’ve avoided paying all the income tax you’d have to pay if you were to sell before death. Most home-owners do this on a small scale: They borrow to buy their home or the building where their business is. Or borrow to buy a vacation home or income property. They use through their life-time, deducting the interest, then leave it to their kids. There is no inheritance tax on most homes or small businesses, and the asset appreciates year to year. Both Nixon and Obama proposed eliminating this loophole by taxing appreciation at death. This would be a lot fairer than the current inheritance tax that is full of loopholes, and unfair when it works. If your parent bought a $10,000,000 item with taxable income, and it remains at that value, why should it be taxed a second time at death?

For a small businessman like me, it made sense to borrow to buy the building that my business operates out of and pay myself a normal rent. It’s income, as real as salary, but taxed at a lower rate, Besides there is no payroll tax on rental income. Another advantage of renting to myself is I can be trusted to fix the building and pay the rent, and I will not throw myself out if there is a downturn, nor will I raise the rents exorbitantly. My car is owned by my business, another plus. I pay a fee for personal use, but this is cheaper than using my own taxed income. When I die, the building (and car) will go to my heirs, tax free.

One last change I’d like to see is in the payroll tax. I’d like to see it tax the entire taxable income, but at a lower percent than the current 15.2 or 7.6. Currently the first $150,000 of income is payroll taxed at 15.2% for a self-employed individual, a plumber or office cleane, even before he/she pays income tax. An office worker is taxes at half this rate, 7.6% before income tax, with the company making up the other 7.6%. A CEO making $10 million pays this rate too, but only on the first $150,000. This amounts to $11,400 in payroll tax, or less than 0.11% of salary. I consider this disparity a bigger scandal than the fact that the richest 25 Americans paid only 3.4% in income tax.

Robert Buxbaum, November 25, 2025. *Trump presents a cautionary tale about property investing; if you invest at the wrong time, you can lose your shirt. In the late 80s, the property market in NY collapsed briefly, and he really was less than penniless. Don’t over-extend. The property market doesn’t collapse often, but you don’t want to be wiped out if it does.

What causes innovation? is it worth it?

Leave a reply

Innovation is the special sauce that propels growth and allows a country to lead and prosper. The current Nobel prize believe that innovation powered the Industrial Revolution, causing England to become rich and powerful, while other nations remained poor, weak, and stagnant. Similarly, Innovation, they believe is why 19th century Japan rose to defeat China, and propelled China’s 21st century rise. But why did they succeed when others did not. What could the leader of a country do to bring power and wealth through innovation. Improved education seems to help; all of the innovation countries have it, but it is not the whole. Some educated countries (Germany, Russia) stagnate. An open economy is nice, but it isn’t sufficient or that necessary: (look at China). That was the topic of this year’s, 2025 Nobel prize in economics to Mokyr, Howitt, and Aghion, with half going to Joel Mokyr for his insights, historical and forward looking, the other half going for economic modeling. I give below my understanding of their insights, more technical than most, but not so mathematical as to be obtuse the normal reader..

The winners hold that innovation, as during the industrial revolution, is a non-continuous contribultion caused by a particular combination of education and market opportunity, of theoretical knowledge, and practical, and that a key aspect is depreciation (destruction) of other suppliers. Let’s start by creating a simple, continuous function model for economic growth where growth = capital growth, that is dK/dt. K, Capital, is understood to be the sum of money, equipment, and labor knowledge, and t is time with dK/dt, the change in K with time modeled as equal to the savings rate, s, times economic activity, Y minus a depreciation factor, δ, times capital, K.

growth = dK/dt = sY − δ K.

Innovation, in the Howett model, is discontinuous and accumulative. It builds on itself.

For the authors, Y = GDP + x, where x is the cost of outside goods used. They then claim that Y is a non-linear function of K, where K is now considered a product of capital goods and labor K = xL and,

dY/dK = AKα + γ where 0< α <1, and where γ is the contribution of innovation and/or depreciation. The power function, as I understand it, is a mathematical way of saying there are economies of scale. The authors assume a set of interacting enterprises (countries0 so that the innovation factor, γ for one country is the depreciation factor for the other. That is, growth and destruction are connected, with growth being a function of monopoly power — control of your innovation.

According to the Nobel winners, γ is built n previous γ as shown in the digram at right. It can not be predicted as such, but requires education and monopolistic power. The inventor-manufacturer of the typewriter has a monopolistic advantage over the makers of fountain pens. Innovation thus causes depreciation, δ K as one new innovation depreciates many old processes and products. If you add enough math, you can derive formulas for GDP and GDP growth, all based on factors like A and α, that are hard to measure.

GDP = α(2α/1−α) (1-α2)A L,

Thus, GDP is proportional to Labor, L and per-capita GDP is mostly an independent function related to economies of scale and the ability to use capital and labor which is related to general country-wide culture.

The above analysis, as I understand it, is in contrast to Kensyan models, where growth is unrelated to innovation, and where destruction is bad. In these Kenysean models, growth can be created by government spending, especial spending to maintain large industries with economies of scale and by spending to promote higher education. The culture preferred here, as I understand is one that rewards risk-taking, monopoly economics, and creative destruction. Howitt, and Aghion, importantly codify all this with formulas, as presented above that (to me) provide little specific. No great guidance to the head of a country. Nor does the math make the models more true, but it makes the statements somewhat clearer. Or perhaps the only real value of the math is to make things sound more scientific see the Tom Lehrer song, Sociology.

This insight from movie script by Grham Green suggests to me that progress may not be the greatest of advantages, perhaps not even worth it.

This work seems more realistic, to me, than the Keynesian models Both models are mathematically consistent, but if Keynes’s were true, Britain might still be on top, and Zambia would be a close competitor among the richest countries on earth. Besides these new fellows seem to agree with the views of Peter Cooper, my hero. See more here.

Writing all this reminds me that the fundamental assumption that progress is good, in not necessarily true. I quote above a line that Orson Wells, as Harry Lime, ad-libbed for the movie, “The Third Man.” Lime points out that innovation goes with suffering, and claims that Switzerland had little innovation because of its stability. Perhaps then, what you really want is the stability and peace of Switzerland, along with the lack of domination and innovation. On the same note, I’ve noticed that engineering innovators often ruin themselves dining in ruin, while the peaceable, stable civil engineers live long pleasant lives of honor.

Robert Buxbaum, November 16, 2025. A note about Switzerland is that was peaceful and stable because of a strong military. As Publius Vegetius wrote, Si vis pachim para bellum (if you wish of peace, prepare for war).

The shutdown will drag; we will win

1 Reply

In theory, both US parties are committed to a balanced budget. Both claim they’ll tax as much as they spend, and we’ll pay our debts. In practice, both parties overspend wildly, year after year. The growth in non-defense spending (pork) is particularly egregious, see graph. For fiscal 2024, the 12 month period ending Sept. 30 2024, the government spent $6.75 trillion ($6750 billion), over 20% of GDP and 37% more than the $4.92 trillion we took in in taxes ($4,920 Billion). The difference, $1830 billion, was added to the national debt, already at $34 trillion, pushing it to $36 trillion, that’s more than 100% of our GDP. The interest cost alone is $1.22 trillion per year, 1/4 of our tax income.

Trump campaigned claiming he was going to balance the budget, but he has not (yet). There were some attempts via DOGE, saving about $214 billion, but the DOGE boys were outed, attacked, and gave up. And now the Democrats have forced a shutdown, using their power to prevent additional borrowing. This leaves Trump with a choice, either balance the budget or accept their spending demands. The expectation is that Trump will fold: there is no way he can find $1830 billion/year. Otherwise, many of the governments 4.2 million workers will go without pay, and many important services will stop.

So far, three weeks in, Trump seems fairly successful at keeping most things running while trying to balance the budget. Even if he fails, as seems likely, we will benefit from the attempt, I think.

Some government services are guaranteed to continue despite the shutdown: Social security and the post office because they are funded separately. Similarly, the patent office, the ports, and the airports. In the past some had to shut, but Trump has raised fees so they remain open and operating.

Essential workers, 800,000 people including customs agents and air traffic controllers continue working with most going unpaid. Trump committed to paying active duty military and for the WIC food program using money raised by new, 2025 tariffs. Tariffs are currently bringing in ~$300 Billion/ year, and so far tariffs mostly don’t affect ordinary folks, and help return manufacturing to the US. Some time soon we’ll have to pay the necessary workers and also some 750,000 non-necessary employees including: half the Dept. of Education, most of NASA and Energy.. They are not really useless, but are doing nothing essential to the day-to-day operation of the country.

Trump seems committed to removing many non-necessary workers in an effort to streamline and balance the budget. He fired 4200, bought out another 25,000 earlier this year, and has issued pre-termination notices to 75,000. A federal judge has blocked all firings as unlawful, but my sense is they are quite lawful and mostly beneficial. If you can’t fire non-working, un-necessary workers that you can’t afford to pay, who can you fire?

I suspect the shutdown will last well into November, well past the election, and that more folks will be fired or bought out. The key November crossroads will be food stamps, SNAP. These benefits are scheduled to end November 1 baring an end to the shutdown. Normally the bill is $110 billion/year, but Trump has eliminated benefits for illegal aliens and asylum seekers, and has instituted tougher work requirements. Democrats seem certain that Trump will fold. For the 11th time they scotched a bill to fund this and reopen the government and pay SNAP. I suspect that, at the last minute, Trump will find savings, or left-over funds and will keep SNAP funded through November.

Among the new savings, Trump ended the EV subsidy last month, saving about $7.5 billion/year ($7500 x 1 million EVs), and has negotiated some reductions in drug costs. He also increased the tariff on some Chinese and Canadian goods appropriate for rectifying trade imbalance, it’s been blocked by a federal judge. He’s also cancelled some rail work and research, saving $28 billion, and cancelled $20 billion for hydrogen hubs, and 83% of USAID. Also two navy ships that were years behind schedule and billions over budget. We need the ships, but don’t have the money. So far, this saved enough to pay all military servicemen.

Beyond this, I hope he cuts Biden’s high speed rail plans: $550 Billion for fast trains, Chicago to Seattle, Detroit to Toledo, San Francisco to LA, etc. The investment is $1,500 per person in the US. The eager thinkers overseeing this would never invest their own money, but are happy to invest everyone else’s. I also hope to see the end of NASA’s SLS rocket to the moon, nice but far more expensive than Falcon. We could also cancel some F35s ($0.1 Billion each to buy, and far more to maintain). Musk suggested replacing them with drones. I don’t know that these savings are enough. I don’t know how long we can continue, but each day shut, we move closer to a balanced budget, and that’s a good thing.

Robert Buxbaum, October 21, 2025

The logic to think that prenatal Tylenol causes autism and ADHD

Leave a reply

Robert Kennedy Jr. recently started the process to add a warning to the labels of acetaminophen products, including Tylenol, noting a correlation between its use during pregnancy and autism and ADHD in children. The advisability of this is controversial. Experts at Scientific American say “the evidence against Tylenol is thin,” The British Journal, Nature, went further: “It’s Dangerous to Avoid Tylenol While Pregnant”, reversing its call for caution. Similarly, Barak Obama: “Trump’s announcement is violence against the truth.” Nature’s current logic is that any risk of Autism and ADHD is smaller than the risk if pregnant women do not take fever medication. Given the confusion and politicalization of the topic, I thought I’d write about the magnitude of the risk, and the logic to think Tylenol causes autism and ADHD.

The evidence that there is some, large risk agent is the tremendous rise in the prevalence of autism and ADHD over the last 50 years, see chart above. The rise t matches the rise in the use of Tylenol as opposed to older medications, like aspirin. Correcting for other changes (confounders), this Oxford study finds 95% certainty association of acetaminophen with ADHD; care being taken to remove confounders.

In terms of the magnitude of the Tylenol effect, this study from Johns Hopkins, compared fetal blood levels of acetaminophen enzymes (measured in the umbilical cord) to the risk of autism and ADHD. As shown below, there is roughly a three-times increase in risk for both in every sub-group of child: male and female, black and white, pre-term and full term, drug user or not, breast fed or not, fevered mother or not. Children with higher blood-acetaminophen levels (2nd, 3rd tercile) always have a higher chance of ADHD and ASD — about 3 times higher– than children in the lower tercile.

The higher cohorts of blood Tylenol is associated with higher risk of ASD and ADHD for every subgroup.

This European study found a similar association, but measured Tylenol use based on interviews. Between these studies, I find it reasonable to advise caution. This is the sort of evidence that caused us to put cancer warnings on cigarettes, caused us to caution against alcohol during pregnancy, and caused the mandate for seatbelts. This is usually what scientists use, it’s the best approach we have. I do not suggest dropping all fever medication, but suggest switching to older medications, like aspirin, or cool showers, or following the Harvard medical journal advice to take Tylenol in the minimum dose.

An upside to the political divide is that we’re likely to have better evidence in coming years. in Republican-leaning states, doctors have mostly favored the advisory. Meanwhile,in D-leaning states women are ignoring the advisory, some even filming themselves taking extra Tylenol, in distain for Trump. These two groups provide a controlled study, so that we should have have better data regarding Tylenol safety in 2-3 years.

Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum, October 12, 2025.

Added Oct. 20,2025: A cynical counter argument to the above, suggested by me ten years ago and others, is that there is no spike in ADHD, that it’s a scam perpetrated by teachers who prefer drugged students to antsy ones. If so, one could argue that the same genetics that make students antsy (ADHD and semi autistic) also affect Tylenol metabolism and use: Parents of such children take more Tylenol. Here is a good Swedish study that supports this view. If this proves to be true, the real scandal is how many normal students, mostly boys, have been drugged up and mis-educated.

Thomas Kuhn, and why half of America loves/ hates Trump

Leave a reply

This post was inspired by articles like the one below asking how it was that some Americans, MAGAs think Trump is good when everyone of value sees him as a fat, bigoted, criminal clown. The Atlantic’s answer is they’re detached from classic ideals of good or moral, and are now fueled by “narcissism, fanaticism, and authoritarianism”. I thought a more helpful explanation was that we’re going through a paradigm shift, perhaps progressing in our thought of what it means to be good.

Consider Thomas Kuhn’s analysis of scientific progress. Tomas Kuhn was a major American Philosopher of the 1960s-70s who claimed that science progress was not uniform but included long periods of “normal science” punctuated by change. A “crisis” leading a “Revolution” resulting in big changes in language, outlook and thinking, a “paradigm shift”. In the midst of these scientific revolutions, the experts of the old system fight bitterly against the new while being confounded by the fact that it seems to work.

Consider the resistance to relativity and quantum mechanics. Before 1905 the experts were doing fine: Professors taught and students learned — formulas, tools and techniques were handed over. Educated had respect and money, and could communicate. There were some few contradictions, as in why the sun burned hot, or why the sky was blue, but one could ignore these. You knew who the experts were, and they didn’t include Einstein, Bohr, Pauli, Plank.

Democrats sell red hats and buttons with Fascist or Felon because Trump’s red MAGA (Make America Great Again) hats work for him.

But then came a few more problems, (inconsistencies in Kuhn-speak: radioactivity, photoelectrons, the speed of light… Einstein published on them in 1905, thoughts that few took seriously: imaginary time was a fourth dimension at right angles to the others, etc. The explantations seemed mad and for 14 years after he published, Einstein could not get a university job — anywhere. By 1919 detailed experiments suggested he might be right on a lot of things. It lead to the rise of a new group of experts plus a loss of esteem for the old, and a bunch of crank explainers who were neither but flourished in the confusion.

Hate abounded; new weapons and cures WWI removed aristocrats and beards. A popular book a lecture series of the time was “100 scientists against Einstein.” There followed a lost generation with no clear foundation. It took 50 years to resolve confusion, but there developed new thought leaders, a new language, new standard formulas and books were sold, and we were returned slowly to “normal science” in a new thought paradigm.

I see the conflict of opinion surrounding Mr Trump as a crisis in political thought similar to the crisis in science thought 100 years ago. Polite discourse if gone, replaced by stunts and insults. The government is currently shut, with 40% federal workers, those whose jobs are non-critical, on unpaid leave. It’s a collapse, not of morals, but of language. Trump hopes to use the shutdown, I think, to show that most of these 40%, are not needed. If they are not needed, it reflects a big lack in government — actually a big bloat in government. You can see why the opponents of cuts see Trump as a fascist who uses “dog whistles” to motivate “his base”, there is a lack of communication and a fear Trump may be right too, I think. The experiment in smaller government is being run as I write, and Trump seems confident that some 400,000 federal workers are not needed. Are they? Instead of debating, we’ve got to violence: two attempts on Trump’s life so far, the main college debater, Charlie Kirk, shot dead. Appropriate, I think, is Bob Dylan’s, “Times are a-changing” and “something is happening here, but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr Jones.”

Other questions are being worked out as we speak -sending chills through the old order: Are China and Europe “ripping us off,” by free trade and stolen technology? Are tariffs an answer. Canadian and European leaders deride these thoughts openly, but I notice that both Canada and the EU have put heavy tariffs on Chinese goods.

Another issue is respect for experts. The Atlantic bemoaned that Trump supporters don’t respect experts on health, climate, and education, but perhaps they are lying. The seas have not risen as expected. Some warming may be good, or better than the remedies. Even if RFK Jr.’s ideas are wrong it seems that science has become unreliable (irreproducible), and that elite colleges aren’t fair in their assessment, nor do they provide great value.

Eventually things will settle down; we will some day have polite discourse. In 40-50 years, I suspect we’ll agree that some tariffs are good and that Trump’s tariffs are either to high or low, We’ll think that the climate push to no nuclear power, was a mistake, as was the giant, Ivanpah solar farm). And we’ll be able to discuss it civilly. I hope the change in thought takes less than 50 years.

Robert Buxbaum, October 3, 2025 – we are now entering another physics crisis too, I think.