Category Archives: Economic & Financial Insights

A deep dive into economic thinking: from inflation, inequality, and taxation to market trends and fiscal policy. With clarity and context, these essays make complex financial dynamics relevant to everyday life and long-term national wellbeing.

Five Things We Learned This Week

Posted on by
Reply

Week of November 15–21, 2025

⚖️ 1. EU Moves to Limit Big Tech Power

European regulators proposed sweeping rules on Nov 18 to curb dominant tech companies, including stricter data-sharing requirements and restrictions on self-preferencing.

Why it matters: This could reshape how major platforms operate across Europe and force Big Tech to open up more, potentially leveling the playing field for smaller competitors.

🌍 2. COP30 Leaders Agree on New Climate Finance Pledge

On Nov 19, world leaders at COP30 committed to a $150 billion fund over the next five years aimed at helping vulnerable developing nations adapt to climate change.

Why it matters: This may mark a turning point for climate justice by providing crucial resources for countries facing rising seas, extreme weather, and food insecurity.

🔬 3. University Scientists Create Recyclable Batteries with 90% Efficiency

A European research team announced on Nov 20 the development of a new battery design that is both high-efficiency (approximately 90 percent) and made from fully recyclable materials.

Why it matters: If scalable, this could dramatically cut the environmental impact of batteries for electric vehicles and energy storage.

🧠 4. Breakthrough in Early Alzheimer’s Detection

On Nov 21, a biotech company revealed a blood test that can predict early Alzheimer’s disease with over 85 percent accuracy, even before symptoms appear.

Why it matters: Early detection enables earlier interventions, potentially slowing disease progression and improving long-term outcomes.

🛢️ 5. Iran and Saudi Arabia Sign Oil-Export Infrastructure Deal

On Nov 17, Iran and Saudi Arabia signed a historic agreement to jointly develop pipeline and export infrastructure after years of strained relations.

Why it matters: The deal could reshape energy dynamics in the region, ease geopolitical tensions, and potentially affect global oil prices.

This week delivered a rare mix of scientific breakthroughs, political shifts, and geopolitical surprises. Each event hints at broader changes taking shape across the world. As always, the Rowanwood Chronicles will keep watching how these threads unfold in the weeks ahead.

Carriers, Claims, and Crude: Why the Caribbean Is Becoming 2025’s Most Dangerous Flashpoint

Posted on by
Reply

In the windswept corridors of Latin American geopolitics, the tensions between the United States and Venezuela have quietly transformed into something far more consequential than a mere counternarcotics campaign. As of late 2025, the scale of U.S. military deployment in the Caribbean, centered around the gargantuan USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group, marks not just a show of force, but a deeply calculated exertion of power.   Beyond the stated mission of interdiction of drug trafficking, this posture suggests a layered strategy: pressuring Maduro, reasserting Washington’s influence in the region, and signaling to Latin American capitals that the era of passive U.S. tolerance may be drawing to a close.

From Caracas’s perspective, this is viewed not as a benign counternarcotics mission but as a direct existential threat. The Venezuelan leadership has responded by mobilizing broadly; ground, riverine, naval, aerial, missile, and militia forces have reportedly been readied for “maximum operational readiness.” Estimates suggest on the order of 200,000 troops could be involved, underscoring how deeply Maduro’s government perceives the risk. In public discourse, the Venezuelan regime frames this as defending sovereignty, not only against cartel-linked accusations but also against what it claims is a looming imperial design.

This confrontation cannot be fully understood, however, without examining Guyana and the long-running territorial dispute over the Essequibo region. Essequibo is no trivial piece of geography: historically claimed by Venezuela, it comprises more than two-thirds of Guyana’s land mass and borders rich offshore blocks. In recent years, ExxonMobil, Hess, CNOOC, and others have developed significant oil infrastructure just off Guyana’s coast, especially in the Stabroek Block.  

Tensions flared visibly in March 2025, when a Venezuelan coast guard vessel sailed deep into waters claimed by Guyana, radioed warnings to floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) platforms, and asserted those vessels were operating in “Venezuelan” maritime territory. Guyana’s foreign ministry publicly protested, noting that the incursion violated not only its sovereign economic zone, but also a 2023 International Court of Justice order that prohibited Venezuela from taking actions that might change the status quo. Guyana also emphasized that its exploration and production activities are lawful under international law, and referenced its rights under the 1899 arbitral award.  

The Essequibo Equation: Venezuela’s Bid, Guyana’s Boom

From a strategic lens, Venezuela’s behavior in Essequibo aligns too neatly with its military mobilization against the U.S. The annexation drive, or at least the territorial claim, is not ideological romanticism, but realpolitik rooted in energy security. On multiple occasions, President Maduro has authorized Venezuelan companies, including PDVSA, to prepare for fossil fuel and mineral extraction in the disputed Essequibo territory. In Caracas’ calculus, asserting control over Essequibo could transform its geopolitical position: it reclaims a historical claim, undermines Guyana’s sovereignty, and potentially gives Venezuela leverage over lucrative offshore oil fields.

The U.S. is not blind to this. Washington’s backing of Guyana is deliberate and multilayered. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s warnings to Maduro, at a joint press conference with Guyanese President Irfaan Ali, make clear that the U.S. considers any Venezuelan aggression against Guyana, especially against ExxonMobil-supported oil platforms, as a red line. For Guyana, which has very limited military capacity, the American presence is both a shield, and a bargaining chip; for the U.S., it’s a way to protect strategic investments, ensure energy flows, and project influence in a region increasingly contested by non-Western actors.

Yet, this is not a zero-sum game with only force on the table. Venezuela’s framing of U.S. activity as an imperial threat resonates powerfully with its domestic base, allowing Maduro to marshal nationalist sentiment and justify radical mobilization measures. The Bolivarian militias, riverine units, and civilian enlistment signal a willingness to wage not just conventional defense, but also hybrid and asymmetric warfare. The mobilization is as symbolic as it is practical.

At the same time, Guyana is investing in a diplomatic-legal offensive. The Guyanese government has formally protested Venezuelan naval incursions and made repeated appeals to the ICJ. International support for Guyana is gathering pace: the Organization of American States and other regional bodies have backed its territorial integrity. In parallel, Washington’s military buildup, dressed as counternarcotics, is likely calculated to saturate the region with deterrence against both terrorist/criminal maritime networks and more ambitious Venezuelan designs.

The risk now is of miscalculation. If Caracas underestimates Washington’s resolve, or if Guyana feels compelled to resist more aggressively, escalation could spiral. But equally, if the U.S. overplays its hand, moving from deterrence to coercion, it risks pushing Venezuela further into isolation or desperation, which could destabilize not only Caracas, but the broader region.

In the broader sweep of history, this crisis may well mark a turning point. Venezuela’s push into Guyana is not just about land; it’s about energy, influence, and the assertion of sovereignty in a global order where resources still drive power. For the U.S., the operation may begin as counternarcotics, but the strategic subtext is unmistakable: protecting American economic interests, reestablishing hemispheric primacy, and shaping the future of Latin America in an era of renewed geopolitical competition.

At Rowanwood, we often say that old maps matter: not just for their lines, but for what those lines mean when power shifts. Here, in the tropical currents of the Caribbean and the oil-laden jungles of Essequibo, the maps are being redrawn – quietly, dangerously, and with very real stakes for the future.

North America’s Strategic Choice: Integration or Irrelevance in a Multipolar World

Posted on by
Reply

As the global trade landscape shifts, alliances such as BRICS and infrastructure developments like the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) are redrawing the map of commerce. These projects are not just economic arrangements, they are strategic assertions of a multipolar world, where emerging economies are building financial systems and trade networks that bypass traditional Western-dominated institutions. In this changing environment, deeper integration across North America is no longer just desirable, it is essential. The United States, Canada, and Mexico share geography, economic interdependence, and complementary strengths. But instead of leaning into this partnership, the U.S. has at times acted in ways that undermine its closest allies, and in doing so, it is undercutting its own long-term strategic interests.

BRICS, now expanded to include nations like Egypt and the UAE, is working toward reducing reliance on the U.S. dollar and building alternative financial infrastructure. Simultaneously, the INSTC, a 7,200-kilometre multimodal corridor linking India, Iran, Russia, and Europe, offers a faster and cheaper trade route than the Suez Canal. These shifts are enabling new alignments between Asian, Eurasian, and Global South nations. In contrast, the U.S. risks being left behind unless it reinvests in its regional relationships. North America, bound by the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), already possesses a solid legal and regulatory foundation. What is missing is the political will to push that foundation into a fully integrated economic zone.

Closer North American integration could strengthen supply chains, enhance competitiveness, and boost regional innovation. Mexico’s manufacturing power, Canada’s resource wealth and technological expertise, and the U.S.’s financial and consumer might together could create a resilient and globally influential economic bloc. However, protectionist impulses from Washington, such as tariffs on Canadian aluminum, trade disputes over softwood lumber, and threats against Mexican imports, erode trust. These actions push Canada and Mexico to expand trade elsewhere, increasing their engagement with China, the EU, and the Asia-Pacific. While diversification is strategically wise, a fragmented North America plays directly into the hands of BRICS and INSTC-aligned actors.

Still, for Canada and Mexico, investing further in North American integration remains the most strategically sound choice. Despite political turbulence, the U.S. offers unmatched access to capital, consumer markets, and legal protections. CUSMA provides a rules-based framework that supports long-term stability more effectively than newer or looser trade deals. And while deeper trade ties with China or Europe may offer short-term gains, they cannot replicate the geographic, cultural, and logistical synergies of the North American relationship. Rather than turning outward in frustration, Canada and Mexico can use their economic leverage to influence U.S. trade policy from within, helping to shape a trilateral vision rooted in shared democratic values and mutual prosperity.

The U.S., for its part, must recognize that its global position depends not just on military strength or Silicon Valley innovation, but on the strength of its closest partnerships. The path forward lies not in undermining allies, but in building with them a regional powerhouse capable of competing with the rising multipolar world. Failing to do so means ceding both economic and geopolitical ground – to rivals who are already moving with speed and purpose.

Rethinking “Developing Countries” and Embracing the Majority World

Posted on by
Reply

When we talk about developing countries, we rarely stop to ask what the phrase actually means. It slips off the tongue so easily, a piece of polite shorthand meant to distinguish between rich and poor, industrial and agrarian, modern and traditional. But behind that convenience hides a great deal of inherited hierarchy. Calling one part of the planet “developing” assumes there is a finish line defined elsewhere; that a good society looks like a Western one, with high GDP, gleaming infrastructure, and endless economic growth.

In recent years, many writers and thinkers have begun to push back on that language, arguing that it keeps us trapped in a colonial frame of mind. Arturo Escobar, in his landmark Encountering Development, described “development” as one of the most powerful cultural projects of the twentieth century, a system of ideas that reshaped the world to fit Western priorities. The word itself became a quiet command: grow like us, consume like us, measure like us.

Where the Language Came From
The phrase Third World first appeared during the Cold War, used to describe nations that aligned with neither the capitalist West nor the communist East. Soon it came to mean “poor countries”;  those still struggling with the legacies of colonialism, low industrial output, or weak infrastructure. By the 1980s, the term had begun to sound uncomfortable, and developing world emerged as its polite successor. Yet the underlying assumptions didn’t change. To be “developing” was to be “not yet there.”

The problem isn’t just historical accuracy; it’s the moral geometry of the words. They draw the map as a staircase, with the G7 at the top and everyone else climbing, slowly or not at all. They suggest that the proper destiny of the planet is to become more like the already-industrialised nations, despite the ecological and social costs that model now reveals.

Why Words Matter
Language shapes policy, and policy shapes lives. When international agencies use developing, they often frame assistance, trade, and climate policy around the assumption that economic growth is the central measure of progress; but GDP tells us nothing about clean water, community cohesion, or cultural vitality. It counts bombs and hospital beds the same way, as “economic activity.”

When we say “developing,” we subtly affirm that Western modernity is the gold standard. That is not only inaccurate but increasingly unwise in an age of ecological constraint and social fragmentation. There are other ways to live well on this planet, and many of them are already being practiced by the people our old vocabulary patronizes.

The Rise of the Majority World
One alternative that resonates deeply is Majority World. The term flips the script: most of humanity lives outside the wealthy industrialized nations. To call those countries “developing” is not only condescending, it’s mathematically absurd. As development writer Sadaf Shallwani notes, “The terms ‘developing world’ and ‘Third World’ imply that development is a linear process, and that certain ‘developed’ countries have finished developing and are the norm towards which all countries should strive.”

The phrase Majority World reframes the global conversation. Instead of a minority of wealthy states defining progress, it recognizes that the majority of the planet’s population, and its cultural, ecological, and creative wealth, resides elsewhere. It’s not a euphemism; it’s a shift in perspective.

Calling Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Pacific the Majority World centres humanity, not hierarchy. It invites curiosity instead of comparison. It allows us to speak about global issues: climate, migration, food security, health, as shared human challenges rather than one-way rescue missions.

Beyond Renaming: Rethinking Progress
Of course, simply changing labels isn’t enough. The deeper challenge is to redefine what progress itself means. For decades, “development” has equated to industrialization, export-driven growth, and consumer expansion. But that model has left deep scars on both people and planet.

Around the world, alternative visions of well-being are emerging. Bhutan measures Gross National Happiness. New Zealand’s Wellbeing Budgetprioritizes mental health, environment, and equity alongside economic performance. In Latin America, the Andean philosophy of Buen Vivir, “good living”, emphasizes balance with nature and community rather than domination or accumulation.

Each of these ideas challenges the unspoken assumption that there is a single road to modernity. They remind us that prosperity can mean dignity, education, safety, and belonging, not necessarily industrial sprawl and high consumption.

The term Majority World aligns beautifully with this plural understanding. It carries a quiet humility, an admission that the Western model is not universal, and that many societies are rich in social capital, resilience, and wisdom even without high per-capita income.

A Linguistic Act of Respect
For writers, journalists, and policymakers, choosing our words carefully is a small but vital act of respect. Before typing “developing country,” we might pause to ask: developing by whose standards? Toward what end? Whose story does this phrase tell, and whose does it erase?

When we speak instead of the Majority World, we acknowledge shared humanity and diversity of experience. It invites us to listen rather than prescribe, to recognize that there are as many definitions of progress as there are landscapes and languages.

This linguistic shift is also emotionally honest. It reminds those of us in the so-called “developed” world that we are the minority, not the model, and that our own path is far from sustainable. The future will depend not on teaching others to emulate us, but on learning together how to live well within planetary boundaries.

A More Honest Vocabulary
The phrase Majority World is not perfect, but it moves us closer to linguistic integrity. It removes the hierarchy, restores proportion, and invites humility. It replaces the idea of a “developing world” that needs guidance with a mosaic of societies co-creating their futures on equal moral footing.

Language is never neutral. The words we choose reveal the maps in our minds, who we see at the center, who we see at the margins. Changing those words changes the map.

Perhaps, in time, “development” itself will fade as a global organizing idea, replaced by something more ecological, more plural, and more just. Until then, we can begin with something simple and powerful: calling the world as it is, in its vastness and complexity, a Majority World that has always been, in truth, the heart of humanity.

References:
• Escobar, Arturo. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press, 1995.
• Ziai, Aram. “The Discourse of ‘Development’ and Why the Concept Still Matters.” Third World Quarterly, 2013.
• Trainer, Ted. “Third World Development: The Simpler Way Critique of Conventional Theory and Practice.” Real-World Economics Review 95 (2021).
• Shallwani, Sadaf. “Why I Use the Term ‘Majority World’ Instead of ‘Developing Countries’ or ‘Third World.’” sadafshallwani.net, 2015.
• Wellbeing Economy Alliance. “What Is a Wellbeing Economy?” 2023.

Alberta, Natural Resources, and the Challenge of Federal Cohesion

Posted on by
Reply

I am starting a series of articles on Canada, its provinces, territories and confederation for the purpose of exploring a vision for the future. Let’s begin at the currently obvious place – Alberta. 

Alberta’s economic model is deeply tied to its resource wealth, particularly oil and gas, and its assertive stance on resource control has generated ongoing tensions with federal environmental and regulatory policy. While constitutionally grounded in provincial ownership rights, Alberta’s insistence on autonomy often clashes with the cooperative principles necessary in a federal system. This commentary explores the roots of this conflict and offers pathways toward a more collaborative and constructive intergovernmental relationship.

Constitutional Foundations and Ownership of Resources
Section 92A of the Constitution Act, 1982 affirms that Canadian provinces have the exclusive right to manage and develop their natural resources. Alberta has used this authority to shape its energy policy and economic strategy, which remain heavily reliant on oil and gas extraction.

However, under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal government retains authority over matters of national and international trade, environmental protection, and interprovincial infrastructure. These overlapping jurisdictions mean that large-scale energy projects—such as pipelines—often require federal approval and regulation, leading to friction between provincial ambitions and federal oversight.

Fiscal Federalism and Perceived Inequities
Alberta’s role as a “have” province in the equalization system has been a long-standing source of grievance. Despite experiencing downturns in the oil economy, Alberta does not receive equalization payments due to the formula used to calculate fiscal capacity. While the system aims to ensure reasonably comparable levels of public services across Canada, many Albertans view it as a redistribution mechanism that penalizes economic productivity without adequately rewarding provincial contributions to national prosperity.

This sentiment is often exacerbated during periods of Liberal federal governance, when policies such as carbon pricing, environmental assessment reform (e.g., Bill C-69), and energy transport restrictions (e.g., Bill C-48) are interpreted as barriers to Alberta’s growth and autonomy.

The Political Psychology of Alienation
Alberta’s frustration with Ottawa is not merely legal or economic—it is cultural and emotional. The legacy of the National Energy Program (1980), perceived as a federal overreach into Alberta’s economy, continues to shape provincial attitudes. There is a widespread belief among many Albertans that their priorities are undervalued in national discourse, while their economic output is taken for granted.

This sense of alienation is particularly pronounced during Liberal governments, which are often associated with centralized governance, regulatory oversight, and climate policy that is seen as antagonistic to Alberta’s resource sector.

The Dilemma of Reciprocity
Despite its demand for autonomy, Alberta remains deeply integrated with the rest of Canada. It benefits from internal migration, national infrastructure, federal investment, and shared services. However, when national unity requires compromise, such as in building pipelines through BC or adhering to environmental targets, Alberta often adopts a defensive posture.

This tension between autonomy and interdependence is the core dilemma of Canadian federalism. While the provinces retain control over resources, their development impacts climate goals, international trade obligations, and national economic stability, issues that fall under federal jurisdiction.

Recommendations for Constructive Engagement
To resolve these tensions and restore national cohesion, both Alberta and the federal government must reconsider their approaches:

For the federal government:
• Strengthen regional engagement: Appoint trusted regional representatives to act as intermediaries between Alberta and federal departments.
• Clarify jurisdictional boundaries: Work collaboratively to define areas where federal environmental goals can be met without impeding provincial development.
• Modernize equalization: Review and revise the equalization formula to ensure transparency and responsiveness to changing economic realities.

For Alberta:
• Acknowledge interdependence: Embrace the reality that long-term prosperity requires cooperation, not confrontation.
• Diversify the economy: Invest in emerging sectors like hydrogen, critical minerals, and clean technology to reduce economic vulnerability.
• Engage Indigenous leadership: Collaborate meaningfully with Indigenous governments who hold treaty rights and are key to sustainable development.

Alberta’s assertiveness over resource development is constitutionally grounded, but politically volatile. The success of Canadian federalism depends not on uniformity, but on mutual respect and intergovernmental cooperation. Both sides must move beyond grievance-based politics toward a pragmatic and future-focused partnership that serves both regional needs and national interests.

Five Things We Learned This Week

Posted on by
Reply

Week of November 1–7, 2025

A week that ranged from sporting glory to sudden disaster, from local democracy to global tech controls. Here are five distinct items worth bookmarking from Nov 1–7, 2025.

🏏 1. India wins their first Women’s Cricket World Cup (Nov 2)

India beat South Africa by 52 runs in the final at DY Patil Stadium to lift their maiden Women’s Cricket World Cup trophy on Nov 2. Shafali Verma starred with a rapid 87 and Deepti Sharma took five wickets and was player of the tournament.

Why it matters: This is a landmark moment for women’s cricket in India and for the sport globally — it will boost investment, media attention and youth participation across the subcontinent.

Source: Reuters, BBC Sport

🌍 2. Powerful 6.3 earthquake kills at least 20 in northern Afghanistan (Nov 2)

A magnitude-6.3 quake struck near Mazar-e-Sharif in the Hindu Kush early on Nov 2, killing at least 20 people, injuring hundreds and damaging historic sites and homes. Rescue and aid operations were mobilized amid heavy local impacts.

Why it matters: The quake highlights acute disaster vulnerability in Afghanistan and the need for rapid humanitarian response and resilient rebuilding in earthquake-prone regions.

Source: Al Jazeera, Associated Press

🗳️ 3. Young progressive Zohran Mamdani wins New York City mayoral race (Nov 5)

On Nov 5, Zohran Mamdani, a 34-year-old democratic socialist, won the New York City mayoralty, campaigning on housing, transit and bold public services. The victory drew international commentary about urban politics and progressive platforms.

Why it matters: A progressive mayor in the U.S.’s largest city will test ambitious local policy ideas on rent, transit and social services that other cities may emulate or resist.

Source: The Guardian, The New York Times

🔬 4. U.S. moves to block Nvidia sales of certain AI chips to China (reported Nov 7)

U.S. officials signalled steps to block Nvidia from selling scaled-down AI processors to China, a move reported Nov 7 that tightens tech export controls and aims to limit China’s access to advanced AI hardware.

Why it matters: Tightening chip controls re-shapes global AI supply chains, pressures chipmakers’ strategies and raises the geopolitical stakes of technology competition.

Source: Reuters, Financial Times

⚠️ 5. U.N. says October saw record monthly high in settler attacks in West Bank (reported Nov 7)

The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported on Nov 7 that at least 264 settler attacks against Palestinians occurred in October – the highest monthly total recorded since 2006. The data drew renewed concern about protection and rule-of-law in the occupied territories.

Why it matters: The surge in violence complicates humanitarian access, peace prospects and international diplomacy aimed at reducing civilian harm.

Source: UN OCHA, BBC World Service

Closing thoughts: This week delivered a mix of triumph and tragedy, local democracy and global strategic moves. From India’s sporting high to Afghanistan’s tragedy, from a major U.S. mayoral upset to tightened controls on AI chips, and worrying spikes in on-the-ground violence, the items show how quickly the world’s attention can swing between celebration and crisis. Each of these events, small or large, reshapes how we understand resilience, justice, and progress.

Five Things We Learned This Week

Posted on by
Reply

Week of October 25–31, 2025

A week of extreme weather, big geopolitical tests, market moves and wrenching human stories. Here are five items you should know from Oct 25 – 31, 2025.

🌪️ Hurricane Melissa devastates parts of the Caribbean (Oct 28–30)

Hurricane Melissa slammed Jamaica and battered Cuba and Haiti, becoming Jamaica’s strongest-ever recorded storm and causing dozens of deaths, widespread flooding and tens of thousands displaced. Recovery and humanitarian relief are now the immediate priorities.

Why it matters: The storm’s intensity underscores how warming seas are amplifying disaster risk for island nations.

Source: Reuters Caribbean Service, BBC Weather Centre (Oct 28–30 2025).

💱 U.S. raises tariffs on Canada by 10% (Oct 25)

In a surprise move on Oct 25 the U.S. announced a 10% tariff increase on many Canadian goods — a sharp escalation in trade friction between the two neighbours and one likely to reverberate across supply chains and markets.

Why it matters: Trade spats between major partners affect jobs, currency values and consumer prices across North America.

Source: Bloomberg Markets, Globe and Mail Business (Oct 25 2025).

🔬 Russia says it tested a new nuclear-powered cruise missile (Oct 26)

Moscow reported a successful test of its nuclear-powered Burevestnik cruise missile on Oct 26, a claim that, if true, carries major implications for strategic stability and arms-control debates.

Why it matters: Such weapons could bypass existing defence systems and complicate future nuclear treaty negotiations.

Source: BBC World Service, Al Jazeera Defense Desk (Oct 26 2025).

📉 Fed cuts rates but Powell warns December is not guaranteed (Oct 29)

On Oct 29 the Federal Reserve cut its policy rate by 25 basis points; Chair Jerome Powell cautioned markets that another cut in December was not assured, a comment that pushed volatility and trimmed some of the initial market rally.

Why it matters: Interest-rate signals guide global credit flows and influence currencies and investment strategy worldwide.

Source: Reuters Finance, Wall Street Journal (Oct 29 2025).

⚖️ Red Cross hands over body of a deceased hostage from Gaza (Oct 27)

The International Committee of the Red Cross transferred the body of a deceased hostage from Gaza to Israeli authorities on Oct 27, a grim and sensitive development in the ongoing aftermath of the conflict and hostage exchanges.

Why it matters: Humanitarian operations in conflict zones require trust and neutrality — both fragile but essential qualities for any future peace process.

Source: Associated Press, Haaretz, ICRC statement (Oct 27 2025).

Closing thoughts: This week juxtaposed planetary fury and planetary politics: a rapidly intensifying hurricane underlines climate vulnerability while tariffs, weapons tests and uneasy ceasefire aftermaths show how geopolitics and economics can shift quickly. All events have been verified to fall inside Oct 25 – 31 2025.

Lansdowne 2.0: The half-billion-dollar deal that asks Ottawa to trust again

Posted on by
Reply

There are moments in a city’s life when the decisions made at council chambers shape not just its skyline, but its soul. The redevelopment of Lansdowne Park has entered such a moment. The City calls it Lansdowne 2.0. Once again we are asked to believe that this time things will finally work out. I am respectfully saying: no thank you.

I support investing in our city’s infrastructure, in affordable housing, and in vibrant community spaces, but I am deeply opposed to the kind of public-private partnership (PPP) model that Ottawa keeps repeating – especially when the affordable housing promise is quietly reduced, when the public carries the risk, and the private partner walks away with much of the upside.

In the case of Lansdowne 2.0, the City and its private partner, Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG), propose to rebuild the north-side stands and arena, build new housing towers, bring retail/condo podiums, and “revitalize” the site. The projected cost is now $419 million, according to City documents. The City’s Auditor General warns the cost could be as much as $74-75 million more and that revenues may fall short by $10-30 million or more. That alone should give us pause, but the real problem goes beyond the balance sheet.

The public-private problem
The idea of PPPs sounds appealing: share risk, leverage private capital, deliver publicly beneficial projects faster. But the repeated pattern in Ottawa is that the public land, public debt and public oversight become the junior partner in the deal. When good times happen, the private side takes the returns; when costs rise or revenues shrink, the City and the taxpayer carry the burden. We know this from Lansdowne 1.0 and from other large projects in the city. The question is not simply “Is this a partnership?” but “Who bears the downside when things go off plan?”

The Auditor General’s review of Lansdowne 2.0 flagged that the City is “responsible for the cost of construction…..and any cost overruns” even though much of the revenue upside depends on later ‘waterfall’ arrivals. If we’re asked to commit hundreds of millions now in the hope of returns later, we must demand transparency, risk caps, guaranteed affordable housing and binding public-benefit commitments. Anything less is not renewal, it’s risk-shifting.

Affordable housing is not optional
At a time when Ottawa faces an acute housing affordability crisis, we are told that “housing towers” are part of the funding model for Lansdowne. But the developer’s track-record of promising affordable units, and then claiming they can’t deliver is worn and familiar. In the updated Lansdowne plan the number of guaranteed affordable units was cut or deferred and shifted toward “air-rights” revenues and condo sales, effectively betting public good on speculative real estate. Affordable housing should not be a line-item to trim when the spreadsheets wobble. It is the social licence that allows private profit on public land. Approving a plan that pares back affordable units yet asks for public exposure is indefensible.

Traffic, transit and neighbourhood liveability
The Lansdowne site sits beside the Rideau Canal, the Glebe and the Bank Street corridor – one of the most traffic-choked corridors in the city. Yet the plan envisions adding 770 new residential units (down from an original 1,200) on top of retail podiums. Meanwhile, the city’s own “Bank Street Active Transportation and Transit Priority Feasibility Study” (June 2024) underlines that Bank Street is already at capacity for cars and buses, that pedestrian and cycling infrastructure is insufficient and that any added vehicle traffic will further degrade mobility.

Without a clear strategy to manage car access, parking, transit loads, cycling/pedestrian safety and construction impacts, this redevelopment risks worsening gridlock and degrading the very neighbourhood livability the project claims to enhance.

Sports tenants and viability
One of the central rationales for Lansdowne 2.0 is that the existing arena and stands are aging and that new facilities will retain sports franchises and major events. Yet the plan, as approved, reduces capacity for hockey to 5,500 seats and concerts to around 6,500 – considerably smaller than many mid-sized arenas. Meanwhile, neighbouring downtown developments such as the proposed new arena for the Ottawa Senators raise questions: what is Lansdowne’s tenant strategy once the major franchise relocates? If the largest anchor tenant leaves, the revenue model collapses. The City is committing hundreds of millions without a transparent long-term sports strategy. Sports teams argue they cannot stay if capacity or amenities shrink. If they depart, the burden falls back on taxpayers.

Commercial podiums and vacant retail
The redevelopment includes a shift from 108,000 square feet of retail to 49,000 square feet; a cut because local business viability was weak in the first phase. Even today many of the commercial units around Lansdowne 1.0 remain vacant because rents are too high for independent businesses and the location’s infrastructure doesn’t support consistent foot traffic outside game days. The plan’s assumption that retail will compensate for public investment is shaky at best. Until we see real evidence of market demand and rental levels that support small business and serve neighbourhoods, not just downtown condo-dwellers, we are betting public money on commercial models that already failed once.

The opportunity cost
Let’s not forget what’s at stake. Nearly half a billion dollars in public exposure. Imagine what that money could do across the city: hundreds of affordable housing units in multiple wards, refurbished community centres, libraries, rinks, park renewal, neighbourhood transit links. Instead, we’re being asked to invest that money in one downtown site, tied to a private partner’s spreadsheet and future real-estate and event-market assumptions. This is a question of equity: do we serve one marquee site or many? Do we favour single big deals or dozens of small, proven community-led investments?

A better path forward
I believe in renewal. I believe Lansdowne and its broader site matter. But I cannot support the current model unless three things change:
1. Full transparency: release the full pro-forma, risk tables, debt-servicing schedules, and waterfall projections.
2. Binding affordable-housing guarantees: not aspirational “10 per cent of air-rights revenue,” but concrete units or legally-binding contributions to affordable-housing stock.
3. An urban-livability strategy: traffic and transit modelling for Bank Street and the Glebe; tenant guarantees for sports franchises; a retail strategy that supports small local business; and a cap on public exposure in cost overruns.

If a deal only works when the public is last in line for returns, when affordable housing is trimmed, when traffic worsens and local business fails, then we shouldn’t do it. That is not civic renewal. It is a subsidy for speculative dysfunction.

Public land, public money, public trust. If those three are not aligned, the right move is not to sign another 40-year partnership and hope for the best. It is to pause, open the books, redesign the deal and ensure the structure serves the city first, not the private partner. Ottawa can build better than this. It just needs to decide whose interests it wants to serve.

Sources:
• CityNews Ottawa: OSEG revamp cost jumps to $419 M.
• City of Ottawa / Engage Ottawa: Lansdowne 2.0 project/funding details.
• Auditor General of Ottawa: cost under-estimation, financial risk.
• Glebe Report: traffic/transportation study on Bank Street.

Good Cop, Bad Cop, and the Ghost of Ronald Reagan

Posted on by
Reply

The latest Canada-U.S. flare-up could almost be mistaken for political theatre. On one side of the stage, Ontario Premier Doug Ford channels a hard-nosed populist energy that plays perfectly to American conservative media. On the other, Prime Minister Mark Carney performs the part of the calm, worldly statesman who reassures allies that Canada still wants dialogue. Together they have turned a difficult trade moment with Donald Trump into something that looks suspiciously like a good-cop, bad-cop routine.

The flashpoint came when Ford’s government released an advertisement in mid-October quoting Ronald Reagan’s 1987 radio address on free trade. Using Reagan’s own words, “Over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries.” The ad struck a nerve south of the border. Ford’s communications team framed the clip as a warning to Trump not to reignite trade wars that would hurt both economies. The Reagan Foundation objected, calling it a misrepresentation and claiming no permission had been granted to edit the footage, but the real explosion came from Trump himself.

Within hours, Trump denounced the video as “fake,” accused Canada of using “fraudulent propaganda,” and declared that “all trade negotiations with Canada are hereby terminated.” The social-media fireworks were vintage Trump – equal parts bluster and strategy. Yet the Canadian side, particularly Carney, appeared unruffled. His office reiterated that Canada remained open to dialogue and emphasized the importance of “mutual respect.” It was classic de-escalation language, signalling steadiness in the face of chaos.

Ford, meanwhile, looked quite comfortable being the villain of the week in Washington. His supporters at home applauded the move as patriotic spine, and conservative talk shows in the U.S. replayed the Reagan clip endlessly. For Ford, this was not just about Ottawa’s trade posture, it was also domestic optics. Standing up to Trump sells well in parts of Ontario, but so does invoking Reagan, a hero to many small-c conservatives. The ad’s provocation was almost certainly deliberate.

Carney’s response complemented Ford’s aggression in a way that looked suspiciously coordinated. While Ford’s office blasted American protectionism, Carney quietly engaged in back-channel diplomacy. Reports from Washington described him as “measured but firm,” assuring Trump that Canada sought cooperation but could not accept one-sided terms. The effect was to let Ford raise the temperature so Carney could later cool it down, extracting concessions or at least opening a channel for reason.

For all its drama, the episode underscored a larger point about Canadian strategy. With Trump back in the White House and America’s politics as volatile as ever, Canada seems to be experimenting with pressure and persuasion in tandem. Ford’s bluster makes Carney’s calm look even more statesmanlike, while Carney’s civility makes Ford’s fury appear authentic rather than reckless. It is a risky dance, but one that may keep Trump guessing and Canada’s interests protected.

Whether the Reagan ad was a blunder or a calculated feint, it has achieved something no memo ever could: it reminded Washington that Canada can still play hardball, and that even ghosts from the Gipper’s era can be drafted into the game.

Finally, as a side note, perhaps Ford is double dipping a little bit, by using the Bad Cop routine to catalyze a run at the federal Conservative leadership. 

Sources:
Business Insider,
Politico,
AP News,
The Independent,
Reuters.

Five Things We Learned This Week

Posted on by
Reply

This week delivered a mix of geopolitics, market jitters, and human stories that matter. Below are five date-checked items from Oct 11 → Oct 17, 2025, each with a short “why it matters” note and source links so you can follow the facts.

🧮 Global growth risk rises as U.S.–China trade tensions flare

On Oct 17, 2025 the IMF warned renewed U.S.–China trade friction — especially around rare-earths and tariffs — could materially dent global growth even as it lifted its 2025 baseline forecast. Why it matters: Trade disruptions between the world’s two largest economies ripple through supply chains, commodity prices and emerging-market outlooks.
Reuters — IMF warns on U.S.–China trade risks (Oct 17)

🤝 Pakistan and Afghanistan extend cease-fire ahead of Doha talks

On Oct 16–17, 2025 officials from Pakistan and Afghanistan agreed to extend a short cease-fire while preparing for peace negotiations in Doha amid recent cross-border clashes. Why it matters: Progress in talks could reduce violence along a volatile frontier and reshape regional security and migration patterns.
Reuters — Pakistan & Afghanistan extend ceasefire (Oct 17)

🕊️ Sharm el-Sheikh summit set to push Gaza ceasefire talks

Between Oct 11–13 Egypt confirmed a summit in Sharm el-Sheikh with more than 20 leaders expected to press for a ceasefire and hostage-release framework in Gaza. The gathering drew high diplomatic attention. Why it matters: A negotiated agreement could reshape the humanitarian and political landscape in the region and set terms for reconstruction and security.
The Guardian — Live coverage of Sharm el-Sheikh summit (Oct 11)

📈 Wall Street’s fear gauge spikes amid trade worries

On Oct 14, 2025 the VIX index rose to a roughly five-month high as investors reacted to renewed U.S.–China trade uncertainty, boosting demand for protective strategies. Why it matters: Higher market volatility often precedes pullbacks and signals investors are re-pricing risk — with implications for portfolios and corporate financing.
Reuters — VIX climbs as trade fears rise (Oct 14)

⚠️ Stampede at Kenyan state funeral injures dozens

On Oct 16–17, 2025 a crowd surge during a state funeral in Nairobi left multiple people hospitalised, highlighting crowd-control and safety challenges at large national events. Why it matters: The incident underscores the public-safety risks of mass gatherings and the importance of planning, medical readiness and infrastructure.
Reuters — Stampede at Kenyan funeral hospitalises people (Oct 17)

Closing thoughts: From trade tangles to fragile peace steps, from market nerves to urgent safety gaps, this week threaded together policy, diplomacy and human vulnerability. Each item here is date-checked to Oct 11–17, 2025 and sourced to primary reporting so you can trace the coverage.

Sources