Systems Analysis

In-depth analysis and multi-part series on political, social, and cultural dynamics. Strategic thinking and big-picture perspectives on systemic patterns and civic challenges.

Political Donations Are a Wealth Extraction Tool

by

Political Donations Are a Wealth Extraction Tool

Political donation requests are constant. They arrive by email, text, social media, and direct mail. Almost all of them come with urgency: a critical moment, a final push, everything on the line.

Many of the people being asked to give are already stretched thin. Donating isn’t casual for these households. It means tradeoffs, on top of rising costs and tight budgets.

Frustration, hopelessness, anger, and disgust are common.

This response is sometimes called donor fatigue or messaging excess. It is fatiguing and excessive — not because people don’t care, but because it is driven by wealth extraction.

Read more

Everything Needs a Fundraiser Now

by

I was noticing some fundraisers when I realized this is just another example of wealth extraction — fundraising for expenses that should be covered by systems we already pay for.

Online fundraising has exploded as a replacement for public systems that collect funds but fail to deliver.

Read more

What the Presidency Means to Me

by

For a more readable, condensed version of this research, see How Decent People Supported Trump: Understanding the Unthinkable
> Understanding How Decent People Supported Trump

What the Presidency Means to Me

The office of President of the United States represents something fundamental to my understanding of democracy and citizenship.

The Constitutional Foundation:
The presidency sits at the center of our constitutional democracy. The President is elected by the people, then enforces laws made by the people’s representatives in Congress. Representative democracy in the United States is constitutional because it is both limited and empowered by the supreme law, the Constitution, for the ultimate purpose of protecting equally the rights of all the people [Annenberg Classroom].

Read more

Regime Change Wars: The Public Ledger

by

For decades, the United States has fought costly wars to overthrow foreign governments—mostly in oil-producing countries—without delivering oil, security, or lower energy costs to Americans. This summary shows how those wars became massive public losses and private profits.

II. Scope, Definitions, and Accounting Rules

by

This report is an accounting of outcomes — not an argument about motives, ideology, or intent. To ensure clarity and fairness, this section defines the report’s scope and the criteria used to evaluate costs and benefits.

Scope of the report

This report examines U.S. actions that meet all three of the following conditions:

  • The United States directly intervened to overthrow, remove, or decisively weaken a foreign government
  • The country targeted was a significant oil producer or held major proven oil reserves
  • The intervention was justified in part by claims related to security, stability, or strategic energy interests

The report focuses on modern U.S. interventions beginning in the mid-20th century, when oil became central to global economic and military planning. Earlier conflicts fall outside this scope because oil did not yet play the same structural role.

This report does not evaluate every U.S. military action worldwide. It focuses only on regime-change or regime-destabilization efforts in oil-producing countries, because those cases are most often linked—explicitly or implicitly—to energy narratives.

Read more

III. Promised and Implied, Measured Against Outcomes

by

U.S. regime-change wars in oil-producing countries were rarely officially described as “wars for oil.” Yet oil was almost always part of the background logic. The public was told—directly or indirectly—that these interventions would protect energy supplies, stabilize prices, or prevent hostile control of critical resources.

This section explains why those expectations were misplaced, and why they repeatedly failed when tested against real outcomes.

Read more

IV. Case Studies

by

The following tables record documented costs and returns for Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Post-911 wars in oil-producing countries.

All monetary figures in the tables below are expressed in constant 2024 U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted. Historical dollar amounts were adjusted using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI) Inflation Calculator. https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Read more

V. Long-Term Costs

by

The spending documented in Section IV represents direct war operations. Combat ends, but costs continue. Veterans require medical care for decades. Families receive survivor benefits for lifetimes. Interest accrues on borrowed war funds regardless of outcomes. These costs are legally obligated. They will be paid whether or not the wars achieved their stated goals. The bills for regime-change operations extend far beyond the years of active conflict.

All figures below are expressed in 2024 dollars and represent current projections based on existing obligations.

Read more

VI: Opportunity Costs

by

Opportunity cost is what you give up when you choose one thing over another. When the government spends money on war, that same money cannot be spent on roads, schools, healthcare, or research. The cost is not just what you paid—it is also what you did not build.

This matters because public dollars are limited. Every budget choice involves trade-offs. Money spent on regime-change wars was money not available for domestic needs.

The sections above documented direct war spending ($2.9 trillion through 2022) and long-term obligations ($12.7+ trillion through 2050). This section shows what those dollars could have purchased instead.

These comparisons use documented costs for actual public programs and infrastructure projects. The numbers show the scale of foregone investment.

Read more