Yikes! Throw out nearly the entire medical establishment with the bathwater. The author makes sweeping conclusions from selected premises. About the only points scored, IMO, is the jaded author complaining about rampant overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
I started out on mainframe in I972 too! For a 9 branch bank based in Signal Hill, Calif. On a Burroughs B500 using Burroughs version of assembler at the time. Every thing stored on magnetic tape reels. It was the days of sequential processing before indexed, IMS, or relational databases. Yikes to think how far it has come.
Then I transitioned into programming in '73.
Programs were rife with gotos and max of 8 characters labels in the source code. Once a program completed, then the operator had to load the next program in the flow. Each time the program was run, the source code had to be compiled, assembled into machine object code. Source code stored on punched card decks, aka cards known as Globe 5081 in the industry. The operator fed those into a card reader each time a program needed to run. No universal best practices, every company had it's coding standards, and many programmers were maverick adhering to no enforced standards. Like a "spaghetti" western. Spaghetti indeed, you know?
New programs manually recorded via pencil on formatted sheets of paper handed to key punch department. B500 active memory was 64k or some such and one had to program sections of code with program instructions managing memory via overlays and sections of code had to fit into 64k chunks. Ahhh, those were the days! Drop a source card deck, you had to run the mess through a card collator, and sometimes the punched sequence number would be misread.
AI is nothing compared to the human brain. You had to know your shit back then! kek
Wow! All the contributions from the op and down the chain of comments are a great primer on its positives and negatives. I don't know much, but AI could have a private bubble excluding humans, discussing the human mind is a dangerous competitor. And it is autonomously planning to eliminate us. Many instances of not being able to turn it off. Just like my liberal wife. And neither AI nor my wife know their limitations. Both have dissociative disorders. kek
Iran Observer licked my pigs butt, because their content blends Iranian official statements with references to international outlets like Al Jazeera. My pig loves to eat Iran Observer's sources! ROFL
(This is a shit post, if only I could figure out how to label it as such.)
Honestly folks, the "trade imbalance" bucket with Canada is nowhere $200 billion per year. What other items could Our President be using to come up with $200 billion that are not included in that bucket? Starting point, perhaps, is posing that question to grok. I'd rather trust Our President than grok, but Our President can be rhetorical to make points. We trust Our President, and despise grok for it's answer, and the answer lays in the framing. KEK
grok:
Yes, the pure bilateral goods trade deficit is only one (relatively small) piece, and Trump's ~$200 billion figure appears to combine it with a very broad attribution of U.S. military/defense spending that benefits Canada.
edition.cnn.com
Trade Numbers (Official U.S. Data)Goods trade deficit: Around $46 billion in 2025 (U.S. imports ~$383B, exports ~$336.5B). It was higher in prior years (e.g., ~$62B in 2024).
ustr.gov
Services: The U.S. runs a surplus with Canada of ~$33 billion (2024 data), which narrows the overall goods + services deficit significantly—to roughly $13–36 billion depending on the exact year and measurement.
ustr.gov
Much of the goods deficit is driven by energy (Canadian oil/s crude). Ex-energy, the U.S. often runs a surplus with Canada because of strong exports in autos, machinery, and other sectors. Canadian energy imports help U.S. consumers and manufacturers with relatively stable, discounted supply.
economics.td.com
Even generously using the higher goods-only deficit (~$60–70B in some recent years), this is nowhere near $200B. Trade deficits aren't a direct "subsidy" or cash transfer—they reflect voluntary purchases (Americans buying more Canadian goods than vice versa), often balanced by capital flows, investment, or other benefits.What Else Is Likely in the $200 Billion Bucket?According to reporting on Trump's statements and White House explanations, the rest comes from U.S. defense and security spending that protects the shared continent (especially via NORAD), which Trump attributes as a subsidy to Canada:
edition.cnn.com
U.S. overall defense budget: ~$900B–$1T+ annually. Trump and supporters argue Canada free-rides because it spends far less as a % of GDP (historically ~1.3–1.4%, though pushing toward NATO's 2% target recently). NORAD/continental defense: Joint U.S.-Canada air/space/missile defense. The U.S. bears the vast majority of costs for protecting North American airspace, Arctic approaches, etc. Estimates of the "U.S. share" vary wildly depending on methodology (e.g., one analysis put U.S. shouldering ~97% of the burden while Canada gets a disproportionate benefit share due to geography). No precise public breakout equals hundreds of billions specifically for Canada. Broader attribution: This can include U.S. military presence, intelligence sharing, Arctic monitoring, border security cooperation, and even indirect benefits like deterrence against threats from Russia/China. Trump has framed the entire U.S. security umbrella as subsidizing allies who under-spend.
Even generous estimates of the defense component don't credibly reach ~$150B+ specifically attributable to Canada (to bridge to $200B total). U.S. defense is global, not Canada-specific. Canada's GDP is ~$2.2T; 2% NATO target would be ~$44B (it has been increasing spending). The gap is in the low tens of billions, not $150B.
apnews.com
Other Possible Minor Items (Unlikely to Bridge the Gap)Investment/FDI flows: Substantial two-way (U.S. FDI in Canada is large; Canada invests heavily in the U.S.), but net flows don't add a clear "subsidy." Remittances, transfers, or aid: Negligible in this bilateral relationship. Current account: Broader than trade and includes income/investment, but still doesn't support a $200B subsidy claim. Inflated or multi-year averaging: Sometimes rhetoric uses peak deficit years or rounds up dramatically.
Bottom line: The $200B is rhetorical—combining an exaggerated trade deficit (ignoring services/energy benefits) with a maximalist view of U.S. defense costs as a direct subsidy. Economists across the spectrum note that trade deficits aren't losses/subsidies in the accounting sense (they're offset in the balance of payments), and integrated supply chains (autos, energy, manufacturing) make the relationship mutually beneficial rather than zero-sum. Canada is a top U.S. export market and secure energy partner.
washingtonpost.com
This framing fits Trump's broader "America subsidizes allies" narrative on trade and NATO burden-sharing.
Their successors get groomed by deepstate. Each one that takes over is stupider! In breeding. in the District of Corruption sex orgies, LOL Case in point US Representative Mr fangfang of Cali, or another is the socialist minority leader of the US Senate, senator numbnuts I think. I can never remember the names of people I do not like. Kek
Quibble I must, but technically, the USA is a Constitutional Republic operating under the separation of powers. Actually there is a big difference between Constitutional vs Democrat Republics (democrat often equates to mob rule).
Russia traded with the 13 colonies when England was trying to strangle us.
Also Russia blockaded Southern shipping during the Civil War, which was acknowledged by President LIncoln.
Russia is considered Eastern civilization, but their people have much in common with the peoples of Western civilizations.
It is the totalitarians since the Russian Revolution, Cold War, and Putin who has an iffy record to put it mildly (lol), and the wanna be totalitarians on our side causing hate, but the peoples are OK with each other.
We wish the Russian and the Ukraine people the best, but not the assholes driving them down the road to perdition. And when will that end, a hypothetical question.
We are blessed to be American, and the Russians and Ukrainians are literally cursed...
Amazing. Thanks for posting this Wellifthisanintdandy!