Are the Straits of Hormuz Open?

For months we have heard dramatically different descriptions of what is happening in the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran says it can close the Strait. The United States says it increasingly controls a safe passage through it. Ship-tracking services report surprisingly little traffic. Meanwhile oil continues to reach world markets and, despite considerable volatility, Brent crude has recently been trading around US$90 a barrel.

So what is actually happening?

Perhaps the most useful question isn't whether the Strait is "open" or "closed".

It is:

How much Middle Eastern oil is actually reaching world markets compared with before the war?

Before the War

The starting point is reasonably clear.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, around 20.9 million barrels of oil per day passed through the Strait of Hormuz in the first half of 2025.

That represented roughly 20% of the world's petroleum consumption and about one quarter of all oil traded by sea.

It explains why predictions of a complete closure of Hormuz produced some frightening forecasts for oil prices.

If 20 million barrels per day suddenly disappeared from world markets, the consequences would be enormous.

But that isn't what happened.

The Initial Collapse

When the US-Iran conflict erupted, traffic through the Strait fell dramatically.

By March, Persian Gulf oil exports had fallen to around 5–6 million barrels per day, according to estimates subsequently reported by Goldman Sachs.

That was an extraordinary disruption.

But since then something important has happened.

The Gulf oil-export system has adapted.

Oil Is Moving Again

By late August, Goldman Sachs estimated that total exports of crude oil and petroleum products from the Persian Gulf had recovered to around:

15–16 million barrels per day.

That is still around 7–8 million barrels below pre-war levels, but it is a remarkable recovery from the March low.

Goldman also estimates that 8–10 million barrels per day may now be passing through Hormuz itself, broadly supporting figures being quoted by US officials.

The United States has reportedly established a protected southern shipping corridor near the Omani side of the Strait. Tankers are being moved through in organised groups, often at night and under US military protection.

Commercial ship trackers see less.

Some estimates based on conventional tracking have put actual Hormuz flows at only 2–6 million barrels per day.

But there is a reason for the discrepancy.

Many tankers are deliberately switching off their AIS tracking systems while making the dangerous passage. These "dark" movements are therefore difficult for normal commercial tracking systems to measure.

So neither figure can be regarded as precise.

But there is now enough evidence to conclude that substantial quantities of oil are again moving through Hormuz.

The Pipelines Around Hormuz

There is another part of the story that receives less attention.

Oil producers have increasingly used routes that bypass Hormuz altogether.

The two most important are Saudi Arabia's East-West pipeline to the Red Sea and the UAE pipeline from Abu Dhabi to Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman.

The International Energy Agency estimates that these routes potentially provide around 3.5–5.5 million barrels per day of available bypass capacity.

Saudi Arabia's East-West system has considerably greater total capacity, although some of it was already being used before the war. The UAE's Habshan-Fujairah pipeline currently carries roughly 1.8 million barrels per day, and the UAE is already working to expand it.

Iraq is also attempting to increase exports through Türkiye, while other alternative routes are being investigated or expanded.

None of these can replace Hormuz completely.

But collectively they matter.

So How Open Is Hormuz?

This is where terminology becomes important.

If we measure only oil physically passing through the Strait, the answer appears to be:

Oil Flow	Approx. million barrels/day
Pre-war through Hormuz	20.9
March crisis low – Gulf exports	5–6
Current estimated Hormuz traffic	8–10
Current total Gulf exports	15–16

On that basis, the Strait itself is probably carrying only about 40–50% of its former oil volume.

But that doesn't tell us how much Gulf oil is actually reaching the world.

Once pipelines and other alternative routes are included, the figure rises to around 15–16 million barrels per day.

Compared with roughly 21–23 million barrels per day before the conflict, that suggests something like two-thirds to three-quarters of the Gulf's previous oil-export capability has effectively been restored.

That is probably the most meaningful measure.

The Hormuz Oil Flow Meter

Pre-war effective oil flow: 100%

March low: ~25%

Current Strait flow: ~40–50%

Current total Gulf exports, including bypasses: ~65–75%

🟥 March crisis
███░░░░░░░ ~25%

🟧 Strait today
█████░░░░░ ~45%

🟨 Total exports today
███████░░░ ~70%

🟩 Pre-war
██████████ 100%

Last updated: 31 August 2026. Figures are estimates compiled from EIA, IEA, Goldman Sachs, Reuters, Axios and published tanker-tracking data.

The Oil Price Provides Another Clue

There is another useful reality check: the market itself.

Brent crude has recently been trading around US$85–95 a barrel.

That is expensive oil.

But it is hardly the price one might expect if 20% of the world's oil supply had genuinely disappeared.

Markets don't know everything, but millions of buyers, sellers, refiners, producers and traders have enormous financial incentives to discover whether oil is actually available.

The relative stability of oil around this range therefore provides some indirect support for the physical-flow estimates.

The market appears to be saying that there is a serious supply problem — but not a catastrophic one.

Open, Closed — Or Something In Between?

The answer to the headline question is therefore:

Yes and no.

The Strait of Hormuz is certainly not "open" in the normal pre-war sense.

Ships face military threats. Some travel under US protection. Others switch off their tracking systems. Insurance and freight costs have risen dramatically. Iran retains the ability to disrupt traffic.

But neither is Hormuz effectively closed.

Millions of barrels are passing through every day, while several million more bypass the Strait through pipelines and alternative export routes.

Perhaps the best description is that the Strait is partially open, while the Gulf oil-export system has become increasingly successful at routing around the blockade.

If the latest estimates are approximately correct, the world has recovered something approaching 70% of the oil flow that existed before the war.

That may explain something that otherwise looks puzzling.

Six months into a war involving Iran, the United States and Israel — centred on the world's most important oil chokepoint — Brent crude is around US$90 rather than US$150 or US$200.

The oil is getting out.

Not all of it.

Not safely.

And certainly not normally.

But considerably more than the word "closed" would suggest.

Previous Posts on the Iran War

For readers who have been following the story, these earlier Grappy's Soap Box posts trace the changing course of the conflict:

Stop Negotiating. Let Iran Come Begging. — Why continued negotiations risked giving Tehran time and economic breathing space.

Talking Peace, Firing Missiles — The strange reality of a ceasefire accompanied by continuing Iranian attacks and threats to shipping.

The Deal That Isn't A Deal — A look at the US-Iran memorandum and the promise that normal shipping through Hormuz would resume.

Time To Finish The Job — Why the breakdown of that agreement and continuing attacks on shipping changed the strategic equation.

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 36 of 2026

     

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• The Surcharge Finally Gets The Boot
• Argentina Is Proving Socialism's Failures Can Be Reversed
• Can AI Write From The Heart
• A Life Lived Well
• What If The COVID Case Numbers Were Wrong?
• Climate, Energy & Prosperity:The Debate That Shapes Our Future
  
• Are The Straits of Hormuz Open?
• Pill Testing, A Mixed Message

Cartoon of the Day

We welcome all feedback; please feel free to submit your comments or contact me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or on X at @grappysb

Climate, Energy and Prosperity: The Debate That Shapes Our Future

Few issues reach as deeply into modern life as climate change and energy.

Climate change begins as a scientific question: How much is the Earth warming? How much is caused by human activity? What might happen in the decades ahead?

But deciding what we should do about it takes us much further.

It involves engineering, economics, politics, international relations and ethics. It affects electricity prices, transport, industry, agriculture, government spending and ultimately our cost of living.

At the centre of it all is energy.

Energy and the Modern World

Modern civilisation depends upon abundant, reliable and affordable energy. It powers our homes, hospitals, factories, transport and communications. Fossil fuels also provide raw materials for fertilisers, plastics, pharmaceuticals and countless everyday products.

Yet burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases, and governments around the world have committed enormous resources to reducing emissions.

That creates one of the great policy dilemmas of our age:

How do we reduce our environmental impact without undermining the prosperity and technological capacity that make modern civilisation possible?

There are no simple answers.

Beyond "Is Climate Change Real?"

The Earth has warmed since the nineteenth century, and human greenhouse-gas emissions contribute to that warming.

But that does not settle the debate.

How much future warming should we expect? How reliable are climate models? How much damage will warming cause? How much can we adapt? And, most importantly, which policies provide the greatest benefit for their cost?

Those questions deserve open examination.

So do the proposed solutions.

Wind and solar offer low-emission electricity but are weather-dependent. Nuclear provides reliable low-carbon power but brings questions of cost, construction time and waste. Batteries and transmission networks have important roles but substantial costs. Electric vehicles eliminate tailpipe emissions but require considerably more mineral extraction.

Every technology involves trade-offs.

The Economic Question

Energy prices flow through almost everything we buy.

More expensive electricity increases the cost of manufacturing, mining, construction, transport, food and services. Industries that depend upon cheap energy can become uncompetitive or move overseas.

Climate policy therefore cannot be assessed simply by counting tonnes of CO₂ avoided.

We also need to ask:

What does it cost? What does it achieve? And are there better ways of achieving the same objective?

That is particularly important with Net Zero, which potentially involves transforming electricity generation, transport, industry, agriculture and buildings over just a few decades.

The Moral Questions

Climate policy also raises questions that cannot be answered by climate models.

Today's wealthy countries achieved their prosperity using abundant coal, oil and gas. Billions of people in developing nations are still seeking the reliable electricity, clean water, refrigeration, transport, hospitals and industry that we take for granted.

Do wealthy countries have the right to deny poorer countries access to inexpensive energy?

And who should bear the greatest burden of reducing emissions: today's largest emitters, the countries responsible for the greatest historical emissions, or everyone equally?

There is another moral question closer to home.

Governments routinely restrict individual freedom for the common good. But how far should that extend in pursuing climate objectives?

Should governments determine which cars we drive, which appliances we use or which technologies generate our electricity? How much additional cost can reasonably be imposed on today's population to obtain benefits expected decades into the future?

There are legitimate arguments on both sides.

A Continuing Conversation

I have been writing about climate change and energy since Grappy's Soapbox began.

My views have evolved as the evidence, technology and politics have changed—and I expect they will continue to do so.

This page therefore isn't intended to provide the final word.

It is a gateway to the discussion.

Below is a selection of previous posts examining the science, economics, technology and ethics of climate and energy policy. New articles will be added as the debate develops.

---

Explore Climate & Energy

Climate Science & Evidence

Six Charts Put Climate Alarmism into Perspective
A recent look at claims surrounding extreme weather, fires, floods, disease and mortality in their historical context.

The Real Climate Deniers, Those Who Want to Erase the Past
Why historical climate records matter when assessing claims about today's climate.

The Sunlight Shuffle: John Clauser's Revelation Shakes Up Climate Models
Nobel laureate John Clauser's challenge to aspects of climate modelling, particularly the role of clouds and reflected sunlight.

Credo on Climate Change
An early attempt to set out my position in what was already becoming a highly polarised debate.

Is the World Warming … to Climate Change?
One of my earliest examinations of climate change and the evidence surrounding it.

---

Net Zero, Energy & Economics

The Australian Net Zero Cost Clock
An ongoing attempt to make at least some of the costs of Australia's Net Zero policies visible.

Is Net Zero Desirable?
A discussion of whether eliminating fossil fuels is practical—or even desirable—given their role in modern civilisation.

Abundant Energy Drives the Modern World
The relationship between affordable energy, economic development and human prosperity.

Australia's Renewables Obsession
Examining the implications of Australia's rapid transition towards wind and solar generation.

Net Zero Destroys the Economy
Considering the wider economic consequences of expensive energy and Net Zero policies.

---

Renewables, Nuclear & Technology

Is Spain the Canary in the Renewables Coalmine?
What Spain's major blackout might tell us about electricity systems containing large amounts of intermittent generation.

Intermittent Renewables Cause Grid Instability
The engineering challenge of maintaining a stable electricity grid as wind and solar generation increase.

What the Heck Is Thorium?
An early look at thorium reactors and their potential role in low-carbon energy generation.

EVs: Green Dream or Environmental Mirage?
Looking beyond tailpipe emissions to battery production, critical minerals, mining and the broader environmental footprint of electric vehicles.

---

Climate Justice & Who Should Pay?

In 2015 I wrote a five-part series attempting to answer a deceptively simple question:

What would constitute a fair global greenhouse-gas reduction target?

Seeking a Fair GHG Reduction Target — Part 1: The Problem

Part 2: Current Climate Change Measures Are Misleading

Part 3: Misleading Measures — Misleading World Ranking

Part 4: Propositions for Consensus

Part 5: Who Is Responsible?

And two related articles:

Climate Change Theatrics, Again!
Why historical emissions as well as current emissions matter when considering national responsibility.

Is Australia One of the Worst Net Emitters in the OECD?
An examination of how national emissions performance is measured and compared.

---

Where Next?

The climate and energy debate will not stand still.

Technology will change. Climate observations will accumulate. Electricity systems will evolve. Governments will change policy. Some predictions will prove correct and others will not.

This article will evolve with them.

New Climate & Energy posts will be added here, and older posts revisited where new evidence warrants it.

The objective is not to defend a fixed position. It is to keep asking the questions that matter:

What is happening? How serious is it? What can realistically be done? What will it cost? Who should pay? And what unintended consequences might follow?

Last updated: August 2026

What If the COVID Case Numbers Were Wrong?

One of the foundations of the world's response to COVID was the PCR test.

Every evening we watched the number of new "cases". Those numbers drove public fear and helped governments justify lockdowns, border closures, mask mandates, school closures and, eventually, vaccine mandates.

But what if those numbers substantially overstated the number of people actually infected?

A remarkable peer-reviewed German study highlighted recently by Dr John Campbell, titled "PCR Massively Wrong", raises precisely that question.

The German study

The study, published in Frontiers in Epidemiology, analysed PCR and antibody testing data from Germany's ALM consortium of accredited medical laboratories. These laboratories conducted approximately 90% of Germany's SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing during the pandemic.

The researchers compared positive PCR results with subsequent IgG antibody evidence of infection.

Their conclusion was startling.

They estimated that only about 14% — and possibly as few as 10% — of PCR-positive individuals were actually infected, as inferred from the antibody data.

Put another way, their analysis suggests that 86–90% of positive PCR results may not have represented genuine infections as they defined them.

That does not mean researchers have taken individual PCR tests and demonstrated an 86–90% laboratory false-positive rate. The German study uses population-level PCR and antibody data to reach its conclusion, and its assumptions will undoubtedly be challenged.

But even allowing for that qualification, the discrepancy is enormous.

For readers interested in how PCR testing works and the reasoning behind the study, I recommend watching Dr John Campbell's explanation and reading the original peer-reviewed German study.

Why does it matter?

Because PCR-positive "cases" became one of the principal measures by which governments judged the severity of the pandemic.

Rising case numbers were used to justify extraordinary restrictions on normal life.

Businesses were closed. Children were kept out of school. Borders were shut. Families were separated. People were prevented from visiting dying relatives. Governments accumulated enormous debts. Eventually millions of people faced vaccination requirements to work, travel or participate normally in society.

COVID was real, and it undoubtedly killed many people, particularly among the elderly and vulnerable.

But that does not answer a different question:

Was the scale of the threat substantially exaggerated by the way we measured it?

If this German analysis is even approximately correct, that question demands serious investigation.

The COVID story keeps changing

Perhaps the most disturbing legacy of COVID was the insistence that "the science was settled".

It wasn't.

The lab-leak theory moved from being dismissed as a conspiracy theory to a legitimate subject of investigation. Claims about vaccines preventing infection and transmission proved far less durable than originally suggested. Questions about adverse effects continue to emerge. Excess mortality remains a subject of debate.

And now a peer-reviewed study is questioning the reliability of the very "case" numbers that dominated our lives.

This doesn't prove that every pandemic policy was wrong. Nor does one study settle the PCR debate.

But it provides another reason why the COVID years deserve a thorough and independent reassessment.

The COVID story on Grappy's Soap Box

I have followed this evolving story for several years. For readers interested in exploring it further:

The mRNA Story Is Not Finished Yet — Why continuing evidence about the behaviour and persistence of mRNA vaccines deserves investigation.

Pandemic Excess Mortality 2025 — Excess mortality remained elevated years after the pandemic, raising questions that still deserve answers.

On the Grapevine — COVID Archive — A continuing collection of research, reports and videos questioning aspects of the pandemic response, vaccines and excess mortality.

Grapevine 2023 — COVID, Excess Deaths and Origins — Earlier material covering excess deaths, vaccine safety, parliamentary debate and the origins of COVID.

The picture is still incomplete. Some of today's conclusions may themselves be revised as better evidence emerges.

That is how science is supposed to work.

What should never happen again is for legitimate questions to be silenced simply because the answers might be inconvenient.

Five years later, perhaps the most important lesson of COVID is very simple:

Never confuse "the science" with science.

A Life Lived Well

Dolly Parton has left us.

Most celebrities leave behind songs, headlines, and carefully managed images. Dolly left behind results.

In her own county she looked at a 30-plus percent high-school dropout rate and decided that was unacceptable. She pulled the seventh and eighth graders together, made them pick a buddy, and offered $500 to each pair if both graduated. The dropout rate fell to around 6 percent. She handed out the cheques herself.

When Gatlinburg burned in 2016 she didn’t issue a statement and move on. She put $1,000 a month into the hands of hundreds of families who had lost their homes, then topped it up with another $5,000 each when the fund did better than expected. The leftover millions went to the long, unglamorous work of recovery after the cameras left.

She helped get a proper hospital built in Sevier County so her people didn’t have to drive hours for care. She paid for the education of Dollywood workers — full-time, part-time and seasonal. She quietly funded a sanctuary for bald eagles that couldn’t be released. When Hurricane Helene tore through the mountains she wrote a personal cheque for a million dollars and matched it through her companies.

And the Imagination Library — millions of books mailed to children because her own father never learned to read — may be the thing that outlasts everything else.

None of this required a government program, a press release template, or a hashtag campaign. It required someone who remembered where she came from and decided that success carried obligations.

That is rarer than talent.

Rest easy, Dolly.
A life lived well.

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 35 of 2026

    

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• The Case Against mRNA for Flu
• Six Charts Put Climate Alamism Into Perspective
• Speak ....If You Dare!
• The Surcharge Finally Gets The Boot
• Argentina Is Proving Socialism's Failures Can Be Reversed
• Can AI Write From The Heart
• A Life Lived Well
• What If The COVID Case Numbers Were Wrong?
• Baby Trump Addresses The Spain Invasion

Cartoon of the Day

We welcome all feedback; please feel free to submit your comments or contact me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or on X at @grappysb

Can AI Write From The Heart?

Artificial Intelligence is no longer a futuristic curiosity. It is becoming one of the defining technologies of our age, with the potential to reshape almost every aspect of our lives. From medicine and education to robotics, scientific discovery and the creative arts, AI is advancing at an astonishing pace.

Over the past year I have explored AI from a number of different perspectives. Some posts examined the enormous opportunities and risks it presents for society, while others tested its ability to create art, illustrate old proverbs and even write poetry.

Today's article brings those threads together.

A friend recently posed an intriguing challenge to Claude AI:

"Compose a 20-line poem explaining why an AI-produced poem is lesser than a human one."

The irony is delicious. An artificial intelligence was asked to explain why human creativity ultimately surpasses its own.

Before we look at its answer, here is a brief journey through our previous explorations of AI.

AI and the Future of Society

These articles examine where AI may be taking civilisation, the opportunities it offers and the risks it presents.

• If AI Wakes Up, It's Already Too Late
  https://www.grappyssoapbox.com/2026/02/if-ai-wakes-up-its-already-too-late.html
  A discussion of superintelligence, alignment and why the greatest AI dangers may emerge quietly rather than dramatically. (grappyssoapbox.com)

• The Robots Are Coming
  (May 2025)
  https://www.grappyssoapbox.com/2025/05/
  Looking at the convergence of AI and robotics and what universal-purpose robots could mean for employment and society. (grappyssoapbox.com)

• AI, Robotics and the Future of Work
  (May 2025 commentary)
  Also within the May 2025 archive, exploring whether AI may ultimately free humanity from much routine work—and what that might mean for civilisation itself. (grappyssoapbox.com)

Testing AI's Creative Ability

Could AI move beyond facts and analysis into genuine creativity?

That question led to a series of experiments on Grappy's Soap Box.

Among them were:

• AI illustrations of familiar proverbs (AI Creativity Challenge), asking AI to interpret sayings visually rather than literally.

• Earlier experiments asking AI to write poetry and comparing the results with human writing (AI Poetry Shootout ).

Those experiments revealed something interesting.

AI is extraordinarily good at recognising patterns.

It knows what a sonnet looks like.

It understands rhythm, metaphor, imagery and structure.

It can imitate almost any literary style.

But imitation and experience are not necessarily the same thing.

Which brings us to today's remarkable poem.

Claude Explains Why Human Poetry Matters

Prompt

Compose a 20-line poem explaining why an AI-produced poem is lesser than a human one.

Claude's response (7 seconds):

What the Machine Cannot Know

I can arrange the syllables just right,
count feet and stresses, rhyme with practiced ease,
but I have never wept alone at night,
or watched a father's hands begin to freeze.

I borrow grief from patterns I have read,
a thousand elegies poured into one,
but no cold graveside ever bent my head,
no funeral bell has ever made me run.

I know the shape of longing, not its weight,
the way "I miss you" hollows out a room.
I've mapped desire but never had to wait
by phones that don't ring in the dark of doom.

A human poem carries fingerprints—
the tremor in a hand that chose each word,
a life compressed to fourteen careful lines,
a debt to silence only they have heard.

I offer craft. You offer scars and years.
The difference isn't polish, form, or art—
it's that your poem cost you something real,
and mine was never bought with any heart.

A Surprisingly Honest Answer

The first thing that struck me was not the quality of the writing—although it is undeniably impressive.

It was the humility.

Claude does not claim that AI lacks vocabulary, grammar or poetic technique.

Quite the opposite.

It openly acknowledges that it can produce polished verse.

Its argument is subtler.

A human poem is not simply a sequence of well-chosen words.

It is often the residue of a life.

It reflects grief endured rather than analysed.

Love experienced rather than modelled.

Loss remembered rather than inferred.

The line that stayed with me longest was:

"I know the shape of longing, not its weight."

That is a profound distinction.

AI understands relationships between words because it has absorbed an immense library of human writing.

It recognises the statistical patterns associated with heartbreak, joy, loneliness and hope.

But it has never sat beside a hospital bed.

It has never buried a spouse.

It has never watched a child take their first steps.

It has never waited for a phone call that never came.

It understands descriptions of these moments.

Humans remember living them.

Or Does Experience Matter Less Than We Think?

There is, however, another possibility worth considering.

When we read a poem, we respond to the words on the page.

If those words move us, does it really matter who—or what—wrote them?

Most readers never know the life story of the poet.

Many classic poems resonate because they express universal truths, not because we know the biography behind them.

If an AI can evoke genuine emotion in a reader, perhaps the emotional experience belongs not to the author but to the person reading.

Maybe poetry has always been a collaboration between writer and reader.

The writer provides the spark.

The reader supplies the memories.

In that sense, AI may eventually become an astonishing creative partner, even if it never truly experiences the emotions it describes.

My Own View

I suspect Claude is right—but only for now.

Today's AI can imitate human experience with extraordinary skill.

Tomorrow's AI will almost certainly do so even better.

Whether it will ever feel what it writes is an entirely different question.

Perhaps consciousness is unnecessary.

Perhaps authentic experience is.

Or perhaps the value of art has never depended upon the creator's inner life as much as we imagine.

Whatever the answer, one thing seems certain.

Artificial intelligence is already forcing us to ask questions that philosophers, artists and poets have debated for centuries:

• What is creativity?

• What makes art authentic?

• Does suffering give art its power?

• Can beauty exist without consciousness?

The remarkable thing is that these questions are no longer theoretical.

They are arriving on our screens every day—sometimes in the form of a poem written in seven seconds by a machine that insists it has no heart.

And that may be the most human thing it has written yet.

What do you think?

Did Claude genuinely capture something uniquely human, or has it already demonstrated that AI can write poetry capable of standing alongside our own? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

 

 

Argentina Is Proving Socialism’s Failures Can Be Reversed

In the early 1900s, Argentina ranked among the richest countries in the world. Its GDP per capita sat comfortably alongside the likes of France, Germany and Australia. Immigrants flocked there seeking opportunity. Buenos Aires was called the “Paris of South America.”

A century later it had become a byword for economic mismanagement, chronic inflation and decline. What happened? Decades of populist, high-spending, interventionist policies — the Argentine variant of what many call socialism or Peronist clientelism — steadily eroded the foundations of prosperity.

Then, in late 2023, Javier Milei took office with a chainsaw and a clear message: the party was over. Two and a half years later the results are hard to ignore.

The Numbers Tell the Story

Inflation 

       

Source https://inflationcompare.com/argentina/10-years

When Milei was sworn in, annual inflation stood at roughly 211%. By the end of 2025 it had fallen to 31.5%. Monthly rates that once hit 25% are now hovering around 2%. That is an 85% reduction.  

(Source: INDEC official data; interactive charts at inflationcompare.com and indicadores.ar)

Fiscal accounts  

Argentina recorded consecutive primary fiscal surpluses in 2024 and 2025 — the first such streak in nearly two decades. The government is on track for a third. 

Source: IMF 2026 Article IV Consultation and Argentine Ministry of Economy

Growth  

After a necessary contraction of about 1.3% in the adjustment year of 2024, the economy expanded 4.4% in 2025. Projections for 2026 sit around 3–3.5%.  

(Source: IMF Staff Report, May 2026)

Poverty

Poverty peaked above 52% in the first half of 2024 amid the initial shock. By the second half of 2025 it had fallen to 28.2% — the lowest reading since 2018. Extreme poverty (indigence) dropped even more sharply.  

(Source: INDEC)

These are not cherry-picked figures. They come from Argentina’s official statistics agency and the International Monetary Fund. Charts of the inflation collapse, the rebound in activity, and the poverty trajectory are freely available from INDEC, the IMF DataMapper, and independent trackers such as MacroMicro.

How Did It Happen?

Milei’s approach was straightforward, if politically brutal: eliminate the fiscal deficit, stop printing money to cover it, cut wasteful spending and subsidies, and begin dismantling the thicket of regulations and currency controls that had strangled the private sector. He reduced the number of ministries, fired thousands of unnecessary public employees, and prioritised energy and mining investment.

The temporary US currency swap line in late 2025 (of which Argentina drew only a fraction and later repaid in full) provided liquidity during a market wobble. It was not the cause of the turnaround. The heavy lifting had already been done through domestic policy discipline.

The Longer Lesson

Argentina’s century-long decline was not inevitable. It was the predictable result of successive governments treating the economy as a political patronage machine rather than a system that rewards work, saving and investment. Price controls, export taxes, monetary financing of deficits and endless redistribution produced the classic sequence: shortages, black markets, capital flight, inflation and falling living standards.

Venezuela offers the more extreme version of the same movie. Once one of Latin America’s wealthiest nations thanks to oil, it has suffered one of the largest peacetime collapses in modern history under the “21st-century socialism” of Chávez and Maduro. GDP has contracted dramatically, millions have fled, and hyperinflation destroyed the currency. The pattern is consistent: when governments expand far beyond their means and attack the institutions of private property and free exchange, prosperity evaporates.

Closer to home, some Democrat-led states and cities in the United States have experimented with elements of the same playbook — high taxes, heavy regulation, aggressive rent controls, and growing public-sector dependency. The results are visible in housing shortages, business flight and rising homelessness in places that once thrived. The contrast with more market-oriented states is becoming harder to dismiss.

Determination Matters

Milei’s experiment is still young. Real wages have been slow to recover, unemployment remains elevated in some sectors, and political opposition is fierce. Sustained success will require continued fiscal discipline and deeper structural reforms.

Yet the early evidence is encouraging. A country that spent decades proving that bad policy can destroy wealth is now demonstrating that good policy — applied with determination — can begin to rebuild it.

The lesson is not complicated. Prosperity is not the natural state of nations. It is the product of sound money, limited government, secure property rights and the freedom to trade and innovate. Abandon those principles and decline follows. Restore them, and recovery becomes possible.

Argentina is giving the world a live demonstration. Other countries would do well to watch closely.

The Surcharge Finally Gets the Boot

At long last, the Reserve Bank of Australia has announced that from 1 October 2026, businesses will no longer be allowed to add surcharges to most card payments.

My reaction?

About time!

Regular readers will know this has been a long-running irritation of mine. Back in 2016 I wrote Credit Card Surcharge Humbug, and eight years later I was still at it with Minor Surcharge, Major Irritation. It seems I have an unusually long memory when it comes to being charged an extra $1.37.

But finally, common sense has prevailed.

The World's Most Annoying Magic Trick

We've all experienced it.

The menu says $24.00.

You tap your card.

"That'll be $24.42."

Where did the extra forty-two cents come from?

"Oh, that's the card surcharge."

It always struck me as bizarre that accepting payment was treated as some kind of optional extra rather than simply another cost of doing business.

Why This Change Makes Sense

Every business has overheads.

Rent.

Electricity.

Insurance.

Staff wages.

Accounting.

Cleaning.

None of these appear as separate items on your receipt. They are simply built into the price.

So why should card processing be any different?

In 2026, accepting electronic payments isn't a luxury—it's a normal part of running a business. The RBA has rightly concluded that separate surcharges have outlived their usefulness.

The Price Should Be the Price

The beauty of the new rules is their simplicity.

If the menu says $24, I should pay $24.

No mental arithmetic.

No tiny sign beside the EFTPOS terminal.

No nasty surprise just as I'm reaching for my wallet.

Will businesses still have to pay merchant fees?

Of course they will.

But they'll simply do what they already do with every other business expense—include it in their pricing. That's how virtually every other cost of doing business is handled.

A Small but Welcome Victory

This isn't the most important economic reform Australia has ever seen.

But it removes one of those small, unnecessary irritations that consumers have been putting up with for years.

After a decade of complaining about card surcharges, I'm delighted to see them finally shown the door.

From 1 October 2026, the price on the tag should once again be the price you actually pay.

What a wonderfully sensible idea.

Never Again Starts Here

The establishment of Australia's Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion marks an extraordinary moment in our nation's history.

Royal Commissions are reserved for our gravest national failures. That we now require one to investigate antisemitism should alarm every Australian.

For decades Australia prided itself on being one of the safest places in the world for Jewish people. That reputation has been shattered.

Following Hamas' barbaric massacre of 7 October 2023, Australia witnessed an explosion of antisemitic incidents unlike anything seen in generations. Jewish schools required armed security. Synagogues were vandalised. Businesses were boycotted because they were Jewish-owned. University campuses became hostile environments. Protest marches featured slogans that many interpreted as glorifying terrorism or advocating violence.

Then came the unimaginable—the antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi that claimed innocent Australian lives and finally forced the nation to confront what had been growing in plain sight. In response, the Federal Government established the Royal Commission to examine both antisemitism and the broader question of social cohesion.(Royal Commission on Antisemitism)

The Commission has an enormous responsibility.

But before reinventing the wheel, it should ask a simple question:

What have other democratic nations done better?

No Western country escaped the surge in antisemitism after October 7. Yet some governments responded far more decisively than Australia. Their experiences provide valuable lessons.

Germany – Zero Tolerance Means Exactly That

No country carries a greater historical responsibility than Germany.

Perhaps because of that history, German leaders moved quickly to make clear that support for Hamas or antisemitic intimidation would not be tolerated.

Authorities:

• prosecuted incitement and glorification of terrorism;

• banned demonstrations where organisers promoted Hamas or celebrated the October 7 attacks;

• increased police protection for Jewish schools and synagogues;

• strengthened surveillance of extremist organisations; and

• reinforced the message that antisemitism is incompatible with Germany's constitutional values.

Germany understood something Australia seemed slow to appreciate:

Freedom of speech does not include freedom to intimidate or glorify terrorism.

Austria – Education and Enforcement Together

Austria adopted a different but equally instructive approach.

Rather than relying solely on criminal law, it strengthened its National Strategy Against Antisemitism by combining:

• criminal enforcement;

• improved protection for Jewish institutions;

• Holocaust education;

• monitoring of extremist activity; and

• coordinated government leadership.

Austria recognised that education matters—but education alone cannot stop organised hatred.

The law must also have teeth.

France – Protecting Public Order

France has long struggled with antisemitism and therefore recognised the danger early.

Following October 7, French authorities:

• prohibited demonstrations celebrating Hamas;

• intervened quickly when protests crossed into support for terrorism;

• deployed thousands of police to protect Jewish institutions;

• publicly condemned antisemitism from the highest levels of government.

France still experienced significant antisemitism.

But it drew a clear line between peaceful political protest and public support for terrorist violence.

That distinction matters.

United Kingdom – Treating Antisemitism as a Security Issue

Britain also saw a dramatic rise in antisemitic incidents.

Its response focused heavily on security.

Government funding increased protection for Jewish schools, synagogues and community organisations.

Counter-terrorism agencies intensified monitoring of extremist groups, while political leaders repeatedly reinforced that Jewish citizens should never have to fear practising their faith.

Again, Britain has not eliminated antisemitism.

But it demonstrated that governments have an obligation to protect vulnerable communities rather than merely condemn attacks after they occur.

Australia's Response

Australia certainly was not inactive.

Governments eventually strengthened hate speech legislation, increased security funding and established the Royal Commission after the Bondi attack. The Commission's interim report has already recommended stronger counter-terrorism coordination and additional measures to improve security.(Royal Commission on Antisemitism)

However, many Australians believe these measures came far too late.

While other countries acted quickly to define clear boundaries, Australia appeared hesitant.

Many observers believe authorities were often reluctant to enforce existing laws against intimidation, public incitement or support for terrorist organisations. Universities struggled to protect Jewish students. Police responses appeared inconsistent between jurisdictions. Political leadership sometimes seemed more concerned with avoiding controversy than confronting extremism.

Whether one agrees entirely with that assessment or not, one fact is undeniable:

Australia has reached the point where a Royal Commission has become necessary.

That alone suggests our earlier response was inadequate.

The Common Lessons

Looking across Germany, Austria, France and Britain, several themes emerge.

Successful governments generally:

• acted early rather than waiting for violence to escalate;

• enforced existing criminal laws consistently;

• distinguished legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy from antisemitic hatred;

• protected Jewish communities through visible security;

• prosecuted support for terrorist organisations;

• demonstrated clear political leadership;

• treated organised antisemitism as both a law-enforcement and national security issue.

None of these countries solved the problem.

But all demonstrated that governments are not powerless.

Leadership matters.

Recommendations for Australia's Royal Commission

The Royal Commission has an opportunity not merely to document failures but to recommend reforms that restore confidence and prevent history repeating itself.

Based on international experience, I believe it should consider the following recommendations.

1. Adopt Genuine Zero Tolerance

Public support for designated terrorist organisations should always attract swift legal consequences.

There should be no ambiguity.

2. Treat Organised Antisemitism as a National Security Issue

Where extremist networks coordinate intimidation or violence, responsibility should rest not only with police but also with ASIO, the AFP and national security agencies.

3. Enforce Existing Laws Consistently

Australia already possesses many of the necessary laws.

The challenge has too often been inconsistent enforcement.

Justice delayed quickly becomes permission granted.

4. Strengthen Visa and Immigration Controls

Support for terrorist organisations or repeated incitement to hatred should carry serious immigration consequences for non-citizens, including visa cancellation where appropriate.

5. Hold Universities Accountable

Every Australian student should be able to attend university without intimidation.

Universities that repeatedly fail to provide a safe learning environment should face meaningful financial and regulatory consequences.

6. Expand Protection for Jewish Institutions

Security funding for schools, synagogues and community centres should become permanent rather than reactive.

Citizens should not need to fear attending school or worship.

7. Improve Education

Holocaust education remains essential.

But it should be accompanied by broader education about democratic values, religious tolerance, freedom of expression and the dangers of political extremism.

8. Improve Intelligence Sharing

ASIO, the AFP, state police and community organisations should operate through integrated intelligence-sharing arrangements to identify emerging extremist threats before violence occurs.

9. Increase Institutional Accountability

Government agencies, universities and police should publicly report on progress implementing the Commission's recommendations.

Transparency builds confidence.

10. Protect Freedom of Speech While Opposing Hatred

Australians must remain free to criticise governments—including Israel's.

But there is a fundamental distinction between political disagreement and intimidation of Jewish Australians.

A mature democracy can protect both free speech and public safety.

The Real Test

The Royal Commission will undoubtedly produce a lengthy report.

The real question is whether Australia has the political courage to implement it.

History shows that hatred grows when governments hesitate.

Germany, Austria, France and Britain have all learned—through painful experience—that early intervention is vastly preferable to later regret.

Australia now has the opportunity to learn from those experiences rather than repeating their mistakes.

If this Royal Commission merely produces another report that gathers dust, it will have failed.

If, however, it restores confidence that every Australian—regardless of religion—can live free from intimidation and violence, it may become one of the most important Royal Commissions in our nation's history.

The victims of Bondi deserve nothing less.

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 34 of 2026

    

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• Europe's Betrayal of the Iranian People
• Trump, Iran and the Endless Negotiations
• The Case Against mRNA for Flu
• Six Charts Put Climate Alamism Into Perspective
• Speak ....If You Dare!
• The Surcharge Finally Gets The Boot
• Argentina Is Proving Socialism's Failures Can Be Reversed

Cartoon of the Day

We welcome all feedback; please feel free to submit your comments or contact me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or on X at @grappysb

Speak ....If You Dare!

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Whether or not Voltaire ever uttered those exact words, they long captured the spirit of Western liberal democracy. The principle was simple: bad ideas are defeated by better ideas, not by intimidation.

Somewhere along the way, that principle was turned on its head.

Today, it is no longer enough to disagree with someone. Increasingly, they must be silenced, shamed, de-platformed, or destroyed.

The irony is striking. Those who most loudly proclaim themselves defenders of tolerance have, in many cases, become remarkably intolerant of views they dislike.

Debate Has Been Replaced by Denunciation

Not long ago, a disagreement over immigration, gender ideology, Islam, climate policy or multiculturalism would have sparked an argument.

Today it is just as likely to spark an accusation.

Question mass immigration and you may be labelled a racist.

Question aspects of transgender ideology and you are branded transphobic.

Criticise Islamist extremism and you risk being called Islamophobic.

Question climate models or the economic wisdom of Net Zero policies and you become a "climate denier."

Notice something important about these labels.

They are rarely arguments.

They are conversation stoppers.

Once someone has been successfully branded with one of these labels, many people feel no need to engage with what they actually said. The label itself becomes sufficient reason to dismiss them.

This is not debate.

It is social censorship.

The Dictatorship of Virtue

An excellent recent essay from the Gatestone Institute describes this phenomenon as a "dictatorship of virtue." The article argues that many Western societies have replaced the pursuit of truth with the pursuit of ideological conformity. Increasingly, expressing the "wrong" opinion can carry social and professional consequences entirely disproportionate to the words spoken. (Gatestone Institute)

In such an environment, virtue is no longer demonstrated by listening or persuading.

It is demonstrated by identifying heretics.

From Words to Intimidation

Perhaps even more disturbing is how quickly disagreement has evolved into intimidation.

People have lost jobs.

Speakers have been shouted down.

Universities have cancelled lectures.

Businesses have been boycotted because of opinions expressed by owners or employees.

Ordinary citizens have become afraid to express perfectly lawful opinions in public.

This "cancel culture" does not require government censorship.

It works because people learn that speaking honestly may come with a heavy personal cost.

The result is self-censorship.

And self-censorship is often far more effective than official censorship.

Meanwhile, Calls for Violence Are Increasingly Normalised

Here is where the inversion becomes truly disturbing.

While ordinary citizens are condemned for expressing controversial opinions, slogans that many interpret as encouraging violence are increasingly treated as legitimate political expression.

The slogan "Globalise the Intifada" is one obvious example.

Supporters often argue that "intifada" simply means "uprising." Critics point out that the term is historically associated with waves of terrorist attacks that deliberately targeted civilians. For that reason, many Jewish organisations regard the slogan as a call to extend such violence globally.

Whether one agrees with that interpretation or not, surely a slogan that many understand as advocating violence deserves at least as much scrutiny as someone questioning immigration policy.

Yet in many public discussions, the opposite seems true.

"Death to the IDF"

The same pattern appears with chants such as "Death to the IDF."

Supporters sometimes argue they are referring only to a military organisation.

Others hear an explicit call for the killing of individual soldiers—many of whom are ordinary young men and women performing compulsory national service.

Again, the point is not whether every listener interprets the slogan identically.

The point is the double standard.

A citizen expressing scepticism about climate policy may be publicly condemned within hours.

A crowd chanting slogans that many interpret as advocating violence often receives far less condemnation.

The Trump Exception

The same inconsistency has appeared in American politics.

Following repeated assassination attempts against Donald Trump, social media has continued to host countless comments openly wishing for his death or encouraging further violence.

Imagine the reaction if similar comments were directed toward many other political leaders.

The outrage would be immediate.

Standards should not depend upon whose side someone is on.

Threats of violence are wrong regardless of the target.

Australia Is Not Immune

Australia has increasingly experienced similar trends.

Recent reports of school students chanting "Kill Pauline Hanson" should alarm every Australian—not because everyone agrees with Senator Hanson, but because normalising political violence against elected representatives corrodes democracy itself.

Disagree with her policies.

Challenge her arguments.

Vote against her.

But teaching young Australians that political opponents deserve death rather than debate represents a dangerous moral failure.

Even when public figures attract strong criticism, leaders should be quick to condemn calls for violence rather than remaining selectively silent. 

Freedom of Speech Was Never Meant to Protect Only Popular Opinions

Freedom of speech has never existed to protect opinions everyone already agrees with.

Popular opinions require no protection.

The entire purpose of free speech is to protect unpopular opinions.

That does not mean freedom from criticism.

Robust debate is healthy.

Strong disagreement is healthy.

Mockery can even be healthy.

But intimidation, threats, organised cancellation, and attempts to destroy livelihoods simply because someone holds a different opinion are not.

The Slippery Slope

History repeatedly shows that once society accepts censorship for ideas it dislikes, the list of prohibited ideas never shrinks.

It grows.

Yesterday's unacceptable opinion often becomes tomorrow's accepted wisdom.

Many beliefs now considered mainstream—from women's suffrage to civil rights and same-sex marriage—were once denounced as dangerous or offensive.

Progress depends upon allowing people to challenge prevailing orthodoxy.

We Need to Recover Liberalism

The answer is not to silence the other side.

It is to defend one principle consistently.

No one should be threatened for expressing lawful opinions.

No one should lose their livelihood simply because others disagree.

And no political movement should receive a free pass for slogans or rhetoric that appear to glorify or encourage violence.

Freedom of speech is not tested when we defend views we already support.

It is tested when we defend the right of people to express views we dislike.

Western civilisation did not become strong because everyone agreed.

It became strong because disagreement was permitted.

If we forget that lesson, we risk replacing the marketplace of ideas with something far darker: a culture where fear, labels and intimidation determine who is allowed to speak.

That is not progress.

It is the quiet abandonment of one of the greatest freedoms our civilisation has ever achieved.