Tag Archives: Donald Trump

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.

Tariffs raise $30 billion per month, but haven’t affected inflation

2 Replies

Economic experts claimed the tariffs would raise no signifiant money, would bring in no jobs, and would be so inflationary that the damage would far exceed any benefit. President Trump instituted them anyway, claiming they would benefit workers, raising wages, returning manufacturing to the US, and serving as a tool of diplomacy. Based on data so far, it appears the experts were completely wrong, and that Trump was right on all counts.

As an average, for the last nine months, our tariff rate has been about 17%, as shown in the chart above, bringing in about $30 billion per month. That tariff rate is as high as it’s been since the 1940s, but far lower than it was in the early 20th century. Chinese products are taxed more, at 47.5% on average, while goods from Mexico and Canada are taxed less, about 5%. High or low the tariffs generate complaints all around. Strangely, those complaining, in the US and out, see nothing amiss with the tariffs that our trading partners have placed on US products. The money from these tariffs came in handy, for example during the recent government shutdown, when we could not borrow money. This tariff money allowed us to pay the military and has helped reduce the annual deficit.

Despite the dire inflation prediction, there has been no noticeable uptick. Inflation has held constant for the last year, at about 2.7%. This is the same as during the last months under Biden, see chart, and is far lower than the 4-8% we saw for most of the Biden term. Basic commodities, in particular, remain cheap, with the price of gasoline and beer lower than in 2024, and luxury imports somewhat more expensive. Lower and middle income Americans don’t seem to mind since most of us don’t buy these goods. This year of inflation data supports Milton Friedman’s claim that taxes are inflation neutral, and that the cause of inflation is government overspending, as he says here. Liberal experts disagree, but the data says otherwise. I suspect the experts are blinded by overly simple theory, of Keynes, that they refuse to abandon. Alternately, they may be willfully lying to promote the agenda of university heads and all others who fund them. I noticed this pattern with global warming experts too. They don’t change their models and dire predictions though it’s way past 2014, and the arctic isn’t ice free.

There has been some job growth, but less than hoped for. There was a decrease in the tech sector and in government employment, but an uptick in services and healthcare. Unemployment has changed little, remaining at 4.4%. Several foreign businesses have moved manufacturing to the US. These include BASF, Volkswagen, LG, and Hanwha to name a few. Hanwha just completed its purchase of the Philadelphia shipyard, and committed $5B to its modernization. I consider this very important. It provides jobs, but beyond this, improved shipbuilding will help us commercially and militarily.

The reason that employment has not gone up as much as hoped seems to be that we’re still buying the same amount from abroad as before, containerized are the same as in the pre-COVID years, see chart below. There’s been some switching of sources, with more coming from Mexico, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and less from Canada and India. Import volumes from China have hardly changed though, since last year, nor have the prices that Americans pay risen. This suggests that China is “eating the tariffs”. I suspect they’ve undervalued their currency to make this happen. We’re selling a little more too, causing the trade imbalance to narrow, but the sales increase are largely precious metals (gold) to China, about 1000 tons in 2025. I’m not sure what China achieves by this; they’ve raised the price of gold to $4,675/oz currently, about double in 1.5 years, and kept the price of Chinese currency low. Perhaps that’s the intent — to keep their currency devalued relative to the dollar. Maybe they have some other idea, like to switch to a gold-backed currency? Who knows? Their purchases increase the value of our gold in Ft. Knox.

Trump’s other justification for the tariffs was as a tool of diplomacy. Trump is using tariffs somewhat this way, as a non-military stick to encourage friendly nations to do what he wants. He got Mexico to stop immigrants and drugs, encouraged the same from Canada and Columbia. He got the EU to spend more in their defense, and got them deal a little less with Russia. They’re still the biggest buyer of Russian natural gas. He also used tariffs to nudge for peace in the Middle East, and between Cambodia and Thailand. Recently, he’s using them to support the Iranian rebels by threatening countries that buy from Iran, or that help the mullahs launder their money and oil. All in all, the tariffs seem to be working for us. The experts are not impressed.

Robert Buxbaum, January 19, 2026

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.

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.

98% Certainty that Trump has reduced crime in DC

1 Reply

It’s been 24 days since Trump sent the national guard into DC, and the crime rate has dropped by a factor of six. The murder rate went from 101 murders per year in 2024, one murder every 3.6 days, to one murder in 24 days. I find that the odds of this being coincidence is less than 2%. Car theft and other crime has dropped as well. I consider murder rate the best metric for crime because no murders go unreported, and none get misclassified as altercations or misunderstandings.

Using the National Guard to maintain order is not that unusual. Eisenhower sent them to Arkansas in opposition to the governor to ensure desegregation. LBJ sent them to Chicago to protect the Democratic convention of 1968.

To figure the odds that this improvement is coincidence, consider that the odds of a murder on any one day is 101/365 = .277. Based on this, the odds of no murder on any of particular days is, 1-.277 = .723. On any given day in DC it’s more likely to have no murders than to have a murder, but the odds get much lower for going many days without a murder, or for 24 days with only one. The chance of of having 24 days without murder, for example beginning at some set-start, would be (.773)24 = .0021 = 0.21%. The odds of having only one murder in this time is calculated similarly, as 24(.277)(.773)23 = 1.8%. This is to say that there is a 98.2% chance that the drop in crime rate is not accidental.

The D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser had originally objected to the guard, but now is happy, or so Trump claims. If she removed them now on, she would have to argue that high crime rates are good. Other mayors may not want to be in this position.

A federal judge, Charles Breyer, just declared the use of the national guard illegal, by the way, a violation of the Posse Comitatus act of 1878 see the complete statement here. The Posse Comitatus act bars the use of federal troops for police activities, except federally related ones. Judge Breyer, decides that there is no federal justification and demands that the national guard leave within 10 days. Trump claims that various riots in DC and LA (and Chicago) constitute an insurrection, and adds that attacks on federal ICE agents and federal buildings makes it federal. Judge Breyer recognizes that many other presidents have used the guard for law and order, even in opposition to the governor. Eisenhower for example, or LBJ to protect the Democratic National Convention 1968, but sees no justification, here or (it seems) for Eisenhower or LBJ either. Judge Breyer seems to believe they all acted illegally. I don’t know enough law to judge, but recognize that allowing Trump to reduce the crime rate makes mayors and governors look bad. Detroit crime is awful, as is LAs, Chicago’s…

Robert E. Buxbaum September 4, 2025.

Trump’s temporary (permanent?) peace between Thailand and Cambodia

1 Reply

Four weeks ago, Trump managed to pause (perhaps end?) a century long war between Thailand and Cambodia that had flared up with F16s, rocket attacks, drones, invasion, and hundreds of dead. He did it by threatening to block trade with both countries if they didn’t sign a ceasefire. Within the day, they did. Perhaps, all they needed was a good excuse to stop fighting. The peace has lasted four weeks, though nasty words continue to flow. Some 70,000 Buddhist monks are very appreciative.

Malaysian PM Anwar Ibrahim (center) hosted the peace talks in Putrajaya as chairman of the Asian regional block, Official Photo.

Thailand and Cambodia have had had significant empires with overlapping land claims going back to the days of the kingdom of Siam and the collapse of the Khmer empire. A peace treaty was concluded between 1904 and 1908, but it involved ill- drawn, conflicting French maps. Several major Buddhist temples are in the disputed areas; they appear to be part of Siam in the earlier map, but part of Cambodia in latter documents. Siam complained weakly about the later documents, perhaps signaling accent, or signaling that they had the weaker army.

The problem festered this way until WWII when Siam allied with Japan and took back the territory it claimed, plus some more. After Japan lost the war, French Cambodia took back the territory, but Siam / Thailand re-armed and re-took in when the French left. It didn’t help Cambodia’s claims that it collapsed into a rein of terror under the Khmer Rouge. As things stand, the International Court of justice favors Cambodia’s claims. Then again Thailand now has the larger army, and has used it to occupy the disputed areas.

Buddhist thank Trump for peace request he gets the Nobel Prize. Photo from USA Today. Sometimes all it takes is a hard push.

A May-July, 2025 flareup in fighting resulted in about 200 dead and/or captured, mostly in the area of the historic temples, plus 135,000 displaced. The Malaysian PM, Anwar Ibrahim, tired to achieve peace, and on July 28, 2025 Donald Trump stepped in and calling both leaders in the midst of tariff negotiations and informed them that they would be banned from US trade if they didn’t stop fighting. With Malaysian help, they signed a ceasefire that day. The presidents thanked Trump; 70,000 Buddhists marched and asked that he get the Nobel Prize. It’s the power of tariffs, and of personality.

Will the peace last? It has for four weeks now, and seems to be holding. The press downplays the significance saying that Trump only got involved because he wants the Nobel Prize. Maybe, but people are not dying who would be. Peace is good and surprisingly hard. I would not mind seeing Trump get the prize, shared with Ibrahim. My guess is that it was motivated more by ego than real hopes of gain. They were in a position to push effectively, and did so. The push was a convent excuse for sanity. A month later, Trump brokered another peace deal, this time between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The press isn’t impressed with this either, nor with Trump’s efforts to end the war in Ukraine; they’re upset over his efforts to reduce the crime rate in DC.

Robert Buxbaum, August 28, 2025. Liberals have a happiness deficit. Here are some sayings of Zen Judaism, vaguely like Zen Buddhism.

Trump may have made peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia; Or it might be a horrible mistake.

1 Reply
Relief poster during Armenian genocide

The Turks and Armenians have been at war for centuries. Perhaps the major event in the war was in the years leading to WWI. The Turks invaded the Armenian region of their empire, killing about 1 million. More recently, Armenia invaded Turkish Azerbaijan, taking territory including the Negorno Karabakh region, while killing and exiling 50,000. Armenia had allied in its fight with Iran and Russia while Azerbaijan had allied with Turkey and Israel. Fighting had continuing until last week when Trump signed a peace deal that involved the US private industry (Trump) building a corridor, modestly named the Trump Road for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). No normal diplomat or investor would indulge in such a deal, and no normal person would commit to it. It seems certain to fail, but then again, it might bring peace to the region and money for Trump.

From the economist

The logic of the deal, and why it might work, is that the wars may have not been so much wars of religion, but wars of geography. The Armenian, Christian communities are dispersed within the Muslim Turkish and Azerbaijani communities. Without their help the Armenians can not communicate with each other nor sell or receive goods. Turkish and Azerbaijani communities are dispersed within Armenia and Iran. Azerbaijan is divided in half, while Negorno Karabakh is entirely within Azerbaijan. The proposed Trump Road would allow transit and trade. Trump and colleagues would to build and defend this road, allowing trade, in particular allowing the flow of oil and gas from eastern Azerbaijan to western, and perhaps even to Turkey, implied is also free trade with Negorno Karabakh. It seems good, and the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan have signed their agreement. As presented, the road would be Armenian territory, but would allow free transit, though not likely of weapons from Iran.

Official photo of the signing; Donald Trump (C), Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev (L), and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan (R), August 8, 2025.

Could it work? Trump is a magician, and sometimes he does what seems impossible. Still there is a lot that could go wrong. Even if this conflict isn’t religious, there are long simmering hatreds, and deep distrust. This is, at best couples therapy, and the one who typically loses is the peace maker. The Armenian Daily Journal has already complained that Armenia gets too little economic benefit, “just crumbs.” There is no way to please both sides, 100%.

There is also a trouble maker, Iran. Iran is in the middle of a 1000 year long religious war for control of the region. Iran sells oil and gas to Turkey and Syria, while funding revolutionaries, Hezboalh. They are not willing to see their trade displaced by Azerbaijan and the US. Iran’s leaders have threatened war to maintain their control. Iran was more threatening two months previously, but Trump punctured Iran’s nuclear program, and joined with Turkey and Israel in the removal of Hezbollah from Syria. Iran still has one card more, but it’s weaker than it was. As a member of BRICS, they have called on their BRICS allies, China, India, and Russia to help them keep the US out. So far, nothing. In a region like this, no normal person would get involved, but Trump is no normal person, and peace is good, if only for a few years (or weeks).

Robert Buxbaum August 23, 2025; A week prior to this peace agreement, Trump seems to have forced a peace between Cambodia and Thailand by refusing to negotiate trade with either until they make peace. Here’s the BBC’s take.

Deriving Trump’s tariff formula, and correcting it.

1 Reply

We have a trade imbalance with many countries, it causes a loss of American jobs, and a transfer of currency abroad. This imbalance is not all negative, of course, it provides US consumers with cheaper consumer goods. Trump would like to eliminate the imbalance using tariffs. He hopes that this will create jobs, and that the money raised will help balance the US budget. He’s already moved to end income taxes on tips expecting to replace that tax with tariff income. Trump claims that the tariffs are not inflationary compared to current the tax system that he claims has been hacked by the elites. In past essays, I’ve discussed the pluses and minuses of tariffs here, and here. Now I’d now like to derive the formula Trump uses, see below. The proposed tariff for any country or region, i, he calls ∆τi.

In the equation at left, χi = our exports to country, i. Similarly, mi = our imports from that country. The difference between these two is our trade imbalance, something he’d like to set to zero. There are two other greek terms that I will discuss, ε and φ. These are the elasticity of elasticity of consumption to price, and the elasticity of price to tariffs. Trump uses an asterix here to indicate multiplication. I will use a, more normal, “dot” symbol, •, to the same purpose. For most countries, he takes the two elasticities to cancel to 2, and produces a chart.

Let’s say that the dollar amount we currently buy from some country, i, = mi  = ni • Pi, where ni is the number of items bought from this country, and Pi is the average price. The intended effect of tariffs is to reduce mi  by raising Pi, the price consumers pay for goods from that country. This increase is certainly inflationary in terms of the consumer: a consumer of French wine will pay more per bottle unless he/she switches to US wine. Typically this price rise is not inflationary in terms of the country as a whole, because the producer likely swallows some of the tariff, so for the country as a whole, we pay less per bottle of French wine. The customer does not see that, but it’s worth noting. Trump sees things this way.

Back to the formula, we need to figure out how much the price will go up and how much sales will change. Economists have elasticity numbers for both these relations, denoted φ and ε. We can say that, for any country, I, the rise in the price of the average product is ∆Pi = Pi•∆τi •φ. Where Pi is the original price, ∆τi is the tariff, and φ is the fraction of this tariff that gets passed on to the consumer. A typical value is φ= 1/2 though some claim less. Assuming φ= 1/2 , if we add a 20%=∆τi tariff, as on on French wine, the consumer price will rise by 10%, a change that will cause him/her to buy less.

How much less will the consumer buy? That’s determined by the elasticity of sales, ε. This is the fractional decrease in the number items bought per fractional rise in the price. In math terms, ∆ni /ni = -ε∆Pi/Pi where ε is the elasticity. Now, since ∆Pi = Pi•∆τi •φ, we find that:

∆ni = -ni•ε•∆τi •φ.

There is evidence to suggest that, for the average product, ε equals about 2, and also evidence that it’s 4. Trump prefers 4, and uses it for his calculations. I prefer 2, and will get nearly the same tariffs at the end. Whatever our preferred value for ε, our next step is to use the following approximation, accurate for small ∆(mi);

∆mi  = ∆(ni•Pi) = ∆ni•Pi, +  ni•∆Pi . 

Trump seems to ignore the second term. Perhaps because it can either be positive or negative, as I’d mentioned above, depending on whether you look at things in terms of the customer or of the US as a whole. I’ll keep it in, writing this term in lighter text. In the end I will calculate a fairly similar tariff to Trump:

∆mi = -ni•ε•∆τi •φ•Pi  + ni•Pi•∆τi •φ.

Rearranging the above, and recalling that ni•Pi• =mi, you can find the appropriate tariff to eliminate the trade imbalance.

∆τi =   -∆mi  /(ε • φ• mi  + φ•mi) .

To make the trade imbalance go away, you need -∆mi = χi-mi . Thus,

∆τi =   χi-mi   /(ε • φ • mi  + φ•mi)

This is the Trump formula with an extra term in light text. If you ignore that term and use the values Trump prefers, ε =4 and φ=1/2, you get the exact values of the tariffs he listed on the chart for most countries — those with positive trade imbalances.

∆τi =   χi-mi / 2 mi  

Now, I’d like to put back in the missing term, and use the (better) values, values I would trust, ε =2 and φ=1/2. Using those values, I find the tariff should be slightly higher.

∆τi =   χi-mi / 3/2 mi  .

I should note that some countries are creating to these trips by raising their own tariffs, and some are lowering theirs. This will cause a change in the imbalance of trade, and Trump will have to change the tariff schedule periodically to keep up.

Robert Buxbaum, April 10, 2025.