CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Authored by William Andersen via The Mises Institute,

Christianity Today recently published an article by Kristy Etheridge that was very critical of Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program, something that would not be surprising, given the magazine’s evangelical Christian outlook on issues.

The article—again, not surprisingly—dealt mostly with how many Christian groups, and especially the Roman Catholic Church, have spoken out against Canada’s program and similar programs in Europe and in the US.

Wrote Etheridge:

Many Christians spoke out against assisted suicide in the 1990s when Dr. Jack Kevorkian became a household name for participating in dozens of suicides in Michigan. Since then, evangelical passion against assisted suicide seems to have waned. While evangelicals have left a void in many public spaces regarding end-of-life issues, the Catholic church has often stood in the gap. As more states and countries consider legalizing the practice, believers must raise their voices together in defense of life.

Christians who oppose assisted suicide affirm that life is sacred. God created human beings in his image (Gen. 1:27), and we do not have the right to destroy ourselves or each other.

Brad East, writing in Christianity Today, noted:

The church’s moral teaching has always held that murder—defined as the intentional taking of innocent life—is intrinsically evil. It follows that actively intending the death of an elderly or sick human being and then deliberately bringing about that death through some positive action, such as the administration of drugs, is always and everywhere morally wrong.

Promoters of assisted suicide always couch their arguments in the language of compassion for those suffering from terminal illness, and 11 US states also permit assisted suicide, all of them except for Montana being dominated by the Democratic Party. This practice always has been couched in the language of “death with dignity,” and it generally has strong support from the political left, although the hard-left socialist publication, Jacobin, recently had an article by Jeremy Appel critical the circumstances under which some Canadians choose suicide, declaring:

But the legalization of MAiD has brought to the fore some disturbing moral calculations, particularly with its expansion in 2019 to include individuals whose deaths aren’t “reasonably foreseeable.” This change opened the floodgates for people with disabilities to apply to die rather than survive on meager benefits.

I’ve come to realize that euthanasia in Canada represents the cynical endgame of social provisioning within the brutal logic of late-stage capitalism — we’ll starve you of the funding you need to live a dignified life, demand you pay back pandemic aid you applied for in good faith, and if you don’t like it, well, why don’t you just kill yourself?

The problem with my previous perspective was that it held individual choices as sacrosanct. But people don’t make individual decisions in a vacuum. They’re the product of social circumstances, which are often out of their control.

It is not surprising to see Jacobin blaming capitalism for something done within the confines of a socialist system, but socialists go by the mindset that says if something is bad, it is the fault of capitalism, since socialism produces only happy results. But Appel is not wrong in pointing out that what began as a way ostensibly to end the suffering of terminally ill people has morphed into a program responsible for one in 20 Canadian deaths, with more than 100,000 people killed since the program began a decade ago, as Canada’s government did away with the requirements that only those with terminal illnesses could request doctor-assisted suicide.

Indeed, the government is happy to recommend MAID to people for a variety of reasons. An 84-year-old woman who visited a Vancouver emergency room with back pain was offered MAID by an attending physician, a suggestion the woman turned down. The government is even expanding its program to cover people with mental illness, including veterans who experienced PTSD as a result of trauma suffered in combat in places like Afghanistan, with MAID eligibility for these people coming in 2027. Appel writes:

In another instance, retired corporal Christine Gauthier, who is paraplegic and competed for Canada at the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Paralympics and the Invictus Games, was offered assisted suicide, with Veterans Affairs offering to provide her with the necessary equipment.

Gauthier had been fighting for five years to have Veterans Affairs provide her with a wheelchair ramp. They wouldn’t provide the ramp, but they would give her the means to end her life.

Most Critics Fail to Recognize the Real Reason Maid Exists

There are plenty of religious and moral reasons to criticize this kind of a program. Although many libertarians have openly supported assisted suicide (with some exceptions), it is important to separate the “right to die” movement from programs like MAID in Canada and in Europe, such as the Netherlands, which has had an assisted suicide law on the books for more than 20 years. Whether or not one supports such policies, as bad as many believe they are, it becomes much worse when government healthcare agencies are the entities recommending that people have doctors put them to death, as there is no way a program like this does not become coercive.

In a country like the US, the government cannot refuse medical care to someone who does not seek another doctor to end one’s life. In Canada and most European countries, that is exactly what the government can do. While entities as far apart religiously as many religious groups and Jacobin might decry the same things—for different reasons—they are united in their support for the welfare state and state control over medical care.

The Christianity Today writers and others in the evangelical camp such as World Magazine tend to frame MAID as a purely ethical issue, and while ethics obviously play an important role in all of this, none of these writers seem to understand that Canada’s government-controlled system has made good medical care even more scarce than it should be. It should be obvious even to someone like Appel that Canada’s system reduces the amount of available care, which should surprise no one who is familiar with socialism.

As noted before, many of complaints against assisted suicide are rooted in a belief that people choose to have medical providers kill them is because they lack resources. Appel writes:

An excellent piece from Global News reporters Brennan Leffler and Marianne Dimain, headlined “How poverty, not pain, is driving Canadians with disabilities to consider medically-assisted death,” notes the “excruciating cycle of poverty” that leads disabled people to choose assisted death, rather than live a life filled with barriers to their existence.

Appel then declares more government spending as the solution:

We’ve let the MAiD genie out of its bottle. There’s no going back. We must ensure that our health care systems have sufficient resources to guarantee everyone, regardless of ability or mental health, a dignified existence.

Appel, however, has it wrong. Poverty supposedly does not matter in the Canadian system because no one pays for medical care. This isn’t a case of Joe dying of liver disease because he can’t afford a liver transplant; this is about Canada’s system having shortages of doctors, equipment, medicine, and all of the other components of healthcare, and shortages are a feature of socialism.

In other words, the way to keep people from using the medical establishment from taking their own lives is to expand medical care, and since outfits like Jacobin see government as the only legitimate provider of health care, that means pouring even more tax revenues into the medical system. Yet, it should be clear that government control of the medical system—especially in Canada—has very predictable results: shortages and denial of care. 

More than 20 years before Canada instituted its MAID program, Jane Orient—a practicing physician—predicted that the Canadian system would find that the premature death of patients would provide financial savings to the program.

Writing about government-provided care, she likened it to providing only freeways to move automobile traffic:

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have all the medical care you needed or wanted, without ever worrying about the bill?

And wouldn’t it be wonderful to drive to work every day without ever paying a toll or stopping at a red light?

The second question usually provokes much more critical thought than the first. Before people vote the money to build a freeway through their downtown, a lot of inconvenient objections are raised.

The first is this: Do we want to tear up the main business district of town?

The idea of “comprehensive health care reform” to “assure universal access” should stimulate the same thought process. To build such a system, you start by destroying the insurance and medical system that we already have.

She continued:

When we build a freeway, we don’t necessarily destroy all the other roads. In Britain and Germany, private medicine is allowed to coexist with nationalized medicine. But in Canada, it isn’t. If you’re a Canadian and want something the government isn’t willing to pay for, or you want it now instead of three years from now, you have to go to the United States.

A lot of proponents of “universal access” want to close the private escape hatch. They want no other roads, just the freeway. Of course, there may be some back alleys or secret tunnels or special facilities for Congressmen, but those won’t provide American-class medical care to ordinary folk.

Some think we don’t need other roads if we have a freeway. But remember what a freeway is: a controlled access road.

Orient continued her freeway analogy, noting that the Canadian system is not built on ensuring better care, but rather promoting equal care, even if that care might be substandard or even non-existent:

In Canada, you don’t have to pay to get medical care. In fact, you are not allowed to pay. Once the global budget is reached in Canada, that’s it. The on-ramps are closed. It doesn’t matter if you have money. Hospital beds are empty for lack of money to pay nurses, and CT scanners sit idle all night for lack of money to pay a technician. But if some people are allowed to pay, Canadians fear that some people might get better care than others.

In other words, Canadian care is more about people equally sharing scarcity than being able to get medical help for their ailments. She noted that the government systems like what we see in Canada routinely deny care for serious illnesses and medical problems, while promoting euthanasia as a solution:

The roadblocks are at the exits that lead to the hospital. The global budgeters “contain costs”—ration health care—by denying those things that you do need insurance to pay for: heart surgery, radiation treatments for cancer, hip replacements, things like that. Out of “compassion,” reformers may open another exit: the one that leads to the cemetery. Do you think it’s accidental that euthanasia and “universal access” are on the agenda at the same time? When government gets involved in providing health care, health care must be rationed.

Given that medical care is a scarce good, there always will be tradeoffs and some form of rationing. However, government systems discourage entrepreneurship and are more likely to be restrictive, increasing the scarcity problems and making it even more difficult for people to receive care that can make the difference between life and death.

Advocates of state-sponsored medical care claim that rationing by price is immoral, but rationing by bureaucratic decree is a moral imperative.

Thus, if Joe were to die because he could not afford a heart transplant, that would be immoral, but if he were to die because the government agency making those decisions denied that care, that would satisfy all moral criteria.

Conclusion

Assisted suicide is on the increase in places like Canada because it permits the government to deny medical care in the name of compassion and “dying with dignity.” It should not be surprising to see increased rates of doctor-sponsored killing running parallel with more government involvement with health care.

As we see more state involvement with medical care, the relative scarcity problems with health care will increase, and as medical scarcity increases, physician-assisted suicide rates also will rise. Death is already built into socialism, so we should not be surprised to see practitioners and advocates of socialized medicine welcoming the Grim Reaper as one of their own.

Perhaps the greatest irony is that the mainstream Christian groups (such as the Presbyterian Church USA and the Episcopal Church) that openly support the Canadian system and demand it be implemented in the U.S. are silent about the proliferation of medical suicide incidents, either ignoring the problem altogether or quietly supporting it.

Because they are blind to the negative effects of the massive state-sponsored intervention they support, their response to MAID and other assisted suicide movements is to call for more of the same.

Authored by Christoph Gisiger via themarket.ch,

Economist Barry Eichengreen is one of the foremost experts on the global financial system. His new book examines 2,500 years of international currency history. In this interview, he discusses the fading hegemony of the dollar, outlines the coming global monetary order, and explains his growing concerns.

King Dollar is staging a comeback. Since the start of the Iran war, the greenback has been in demand as a safe-haven asset. The losses following the price slide at the beginning of the year against the Swiss franc, euro, and other major currencies have been recuperated.

Yet, although the dollar accounts for around 60% of global foreign exchange reserves and dominates more than half of world trade, its hegemony appears more fragile than ever.

"From the war in Iran to the tariff chaos and domestic political uncertainty, I fear that the Trump administration's actions are prompting the rest of the world to reduce its dependence on the dollar; “most obviously in Europe but elsewhere as well"

- Barry Eichengreen.

This is the conclusion reached by Barry Eichengreen. In his new book, "Money Beyond Borders: Global Currencies from Croesus to Crypto" , the US economist examines the long history of international currencies, from ancient coins to blockchain technology. He demonstrates that the same factors contributing to the widespread use of a dominant currency ultimately lead to its replacement.

As the professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and profound expert on the global monetary system argues, the dollar is now on the downside of this cycle. A major reason for its downturn is that political institutions in the US are weakened, including high public debt and attacks on the independence of the central bank. Likewise, America is no longer a reliable partner for international alliances.

“To me, the argument that the dollar is in a secular decline as the dominant global currency remains intact,” says Eichengreen.

In this wide-ranging interview, which has been lightly edited for length and clarity, he applies historical examples of leading currencies to the present and identifies potential winners and losers should intensify the flight from dollar assets.

Contrary to increasing doubts, the dollar has proven itself as a safe haven since the start of the Iran war. From a historical perspective, what are the central characteristics of a global reserve currency ?

There are some commonplace arguments about the foundations of an international currency. They typically center around the importance of economic size, commercial trading, preeminence, and economic and financial stability, including the stability of the currency itself. In my book, however, I also advance some unconventional arguments; domestic factors such as rule of law, separation of powers, central bank independence as well as representation for investors and creditors. Furthermore, I examine the role of international politics and the importance of alliances, which until recently haven't gotten the same attention.

What can be derived from this for the future of the dollar? Does the current recovery mark a sustainable turnaround? Or does the long-term downward trend that began in autumn 2022 remain intact?

I would anticipate a further decline because we have learned something new and important from the last year and a half: that those domestic political institutions in the United States are weaker. They're more fragile than we had concluded in earlier, more complicated years. Consequently, I think the foundations of dollar dominance are weaker than previously anticipated, and that the dollar is likely to continue ceding market share globally over time.

Why are aspects like the rule of law and strong, independent institutions important for a global reserve currency?

They are a key pillar of every dominant global currency in history, all the way back to the Roman Republic where the senate was composed of property owners and other elites who were interested in monetary stability. In political democracies, citizens maintain the power to vote out governments that fail to preserve monetary stability. So I worry that observers look at the United States and ask: if Donald Trump chooses to put his signature on dollar bills today, and then seeks to debase or devalue the US currency tomorrow, who is going to stop him? Will Congress stand up to him? Or the courts? It's very worrisome.

Within the Trump administration, however, it is argued that the dollar's function as a global reserve currency is a burden for America. How did this play out with previous leading currencies?

History suggests that widespread global use of a currency can have negative side effects. The currency tends to be stronger than it would otherwise be, which can create headwinds for domestic industry and exporters. You saw this in 13th- and 14th-century Florence, in the 17th-century Netherlands, and arguably in early 20th-century Britain. So I wouldn't dismiss it entirely, but a currency's value on the foreign exchange markets ranks about tenth on the list of fundamental factors determining the competitiveness of a country and its economy. Far more important are education and training of the workforce, investment in the capital stock and infrastructure, the innovative capacity of the economy, and the legal framework as I just mentioned in the context of the United States today.

What consequences does this have for the financial markets ?

At the beginning of 2025, all the discussion was about a “Mar-a-Lago accord,” the “debasement trade,” and the idea that the US might do something to devalue the dollar. This undermined the dollar's appeal to foreign central banks, corporations, and investors because they faced the risk of capital losses on their dollar-denominated assets. More recently, the discussion has shifted toward geopolitical uncertainties. For Europe, for example, it has become increasingly important to be more self-sustaining, more sovereign over its money and finances. This includes reducing dependence not only on the dollar itself, but also on the US correspondent banking system and the SWIFT network.

Nevertheless, the dollar's recovery has surprised many market participants in recent weeks .

The point I would make regarding the dollar's apparent recovery so far in 2026 is that in the first two trading days following the outbreak of the war in Iran, the currency strengthened by approximately 1.5%. That reaction was typical of the dollar's role as a safe haven, but 1.5% was a small gain by historical standards given the magnitude of the shock. Against the backdrop of this geopolitical and military turbulence, the surprise is that the dollar has not strengthened any more. So to me, the argument that the dollar is in a secular decline as the dominant global currency remains intact.

You mentioned at the beginning that military supremacy was one aspect of a leading currency in the past. How important is this factor?

Looking back at the 2500-year history of international currencies – from ancient Greece to the Roman Republic to the Dutch Republic to when Britannia ruled the waves in the 19th century –, economic or commercial power and military security have always gone together. They have always combined to support the cross-border use of the currency of that preeminent commercial and military power. Today, it seems that this kind of geopolitical leverage has two elements: first, you must possess a vast arsenal of planes and missiles; Second, you must also have a coherent military strategy. For instance, the Dutch East India Company was not only a trading power but also, de facto, a military power that secured the Low Countries' ports in the Dutch East Indies.

How does that stand today, considering the US actions in the Middle East?

It is evident that the US government lacks a solution for ensuring safe maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. So the fact that the US has a lot of planes and missiles is not sufficient. You have to have a coherent strategy, and that strategy should have, number one, a coalition of countries behind it – that's where alliance politics come in again – and a coherent objective. It's clear the US lacks those two elements in the present instance.

What is a historical example of how a reliable alliance policy promotes the status of a global reserve currency?

The best example is the United States itself after World War II, when the dollar durably became the dominant global currency. We provided dollars to our allies through the Marshall Plan and helped to build NATO in order to strengthen our political relations with those partners. So in the 1960s, when the dollar pegged to gold at $35 an ounce came under pressure, the governments in Japan and Germany supported the dollar because they were our alliance partners, relying on the US for military and geopolitical support. That underscores the intersection of geopolitics and global finance in cementing international alliances. We were a trustworthy alliance partner which solidified the dollar's role.

Today, that is no longer so certain. President Trump describes NATO as a paper tiger and threats that the US could withdraw from the alliance. As an economist, what do you think about that?

The importance of not succumbing to the temptation to think like an economist. We are trained to look for a coherent strategy on part of the US administration; and that also applies to maintaining the global role of the dollar. At one point last year, Trump has threatened the risk of increased tariffs on other countries if they moved away from the dollar. But almost the next day, he reiterated his desire for the Fed to cut interest rates and suggested how a weaker dollar would be good for the US. So I don't think there is really a coherent strategy here. From the war in Iran to the tariff chaos and domestic political uncertainty, I fear that the Trump administration's actions are prompting the rest of the world to reduce its dependence on the dollar; most obviously in Europe but elsewhere as well.

In your book, you also explain how superpowers in the past overextended themselves financially with military spending, which ultimately led to the decline of their currency. How great is this risk for the US, especially as President Trump wants to massively increase the military budget in the next fiscal year?

In 2021, I published a book with co-authors called «In Defense of Public Debt» . Between then and now, my view of the debt situation in the US has grown darker. I've modified my views in light of interest rates that are significantly higher today, as they make the US debt situation increasingly problematic. And now, we're on top of that more military spending. Given the deep political polarization, Congress is unable to reach a durable compromise that would begin closing the budget deficit. On all those grounds, continued high polarization, increased military spending, and higher interest rates, the debt trajectory is more troubling. This will be a powerful factor affecting the decisions of central bank reserve managers and others as they determine which currencies to hold in their portfolios.

But then the question arises: what are the alternatives? China, for example, is investing heavily in expanding its military power, but the renminbi's share of global foreign exchange reserves remains low and has even declined slightly recently.

The Chinese economy is continuing to grow faster than the US economy, and other countries use the renminbi in their trade with China. However, politics are an obstacle to China's aspirations to internationalize its currency and establish it as a true first-class rival to the dollar. So the questions regarding US politics apply to China even more powerfully. China lacks the separation of powers, and the rule of law is subject to whatever the Politburo and the president decide tomorrow morning it should be. Furthermore, there is no central bank independence. Since I don't see China's political system changing anytime soon, I doubt central banks and corporate treasurers around the world feel comfortable about parking their reserves in renminbi in Shanghai, in Chinese banks.

The independence of monetary policy is also a hot topic in the US right now. What can be expected from Kevin Warsh as the next head of the Federal Reserve?

I don't have expectations yet because he has a mixed track record, and his signals have been conflicting. He urged the Fed to tighten early during the global financial crisis, which would have been premature. He also had questions about quantitative easing during the global liquidity and deflation crisis when it was essential. More recently, he has flipped from supporting higher interest rates to calling for lower ones. Assuming he gets confirmed, he will be caught between a rock and a hard place. The hard place is that inflation will be going up to more than 4%, if you believe the OECD, and the rock is Donald Trump.

Which is the greater risk for the Fed regarding the rise in energy prices: an inflationary surge or a slowdown in economic growth?

The answer depends on your view of whether the energy shock and the rise in inflation are temporary or persistent. If the shock is temporary, the Fed should look through it and refrain from raising interest rates because inflation will subside. However, if the shock persists due to the war, the Fed must raise interest rates to dampen down inflation and preserve its credibility. It can't achieve anything else, including fighting unemployment, if it doesn't maintain its anti-inflationary credibility first in the face of a permanent price shock.

Let's try to look a bit further ahead. What can be learned from 2,500 years of international currency history about the future of the financial system?

If we have enough time, a few decades, I could envision a smooth transition in which the dollar's dominance declines toward a more multipolar global monetary and financial system. The dollar might then share its global role with other major currencies such as the Chinese renminbi as China opens its financial markets and deepens its financial systems' liquidity. The euro could also gain prominence, if the European Union achieves three objectives: completing the capital markets union, building a defense capability commensurate with dominant currency status, and moving towards the issuance of EU bonds, serving as the bedrock of euro-denominated portfolios. The third step, issuing more EU bonds, would require amending the Treaty of the European Union, which is hard to do. Additionally, digital technologies can make non-traditional reserve currencies better tradable. This includes the Swiss franc, the South Korean won, the Australian dollar, the New Zealand dollar, the Singapore dollar, and the Scandinavian currencies. These could complement the currencies of the major economies, at least on the margin.

In this context, what are the prospects for cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin?

Blockchain and distributed ledger technology represent an important innovation, offering alternatives to the dollar by providing payment rails that can be used to move tokens denominated in various currencies across borders for international transactions. The question is: what will run on those rails? Will it be plain vanilla cryptocurrencies like Bitcoins, stable coins, central bank digital currencies, or tokenized bank deposits? I would bet on a combination of central bank digital currencies and tokenized deposits. For example, there are lots of deposits in Swiss banks that can be tokenized and used for cross-border transactions through efficient distributed ledger technologies.

And what about gold? Central banks have been increasingly diversifying their reserves with the precious metal for several years.

Gold is there, although I would not expect its role to grow. You can only use it in financial transactions when it's stored at the Bank of England, the London Metal Exchange or the New York Fed. Yet, many central banks have been repatriating their gold for security reasons. Once repatriated, gold becomes sterile: it cannot be swapped or used as collateral for international financial transactions. So, we've learned in the last few weeks that the price of gold can go down, not only up; that it's a volatile asset and risky to hold.

What happens if there isn't enough time for a smooth transition to a more broadly diversified monetary system?

This is where my book ends. If confidence in the dollar is lost abruptly, there will be no alternative at scale, at which point interest rates will rise sharply and the liquidity needed for cross-border trade and finance will dry up. Essentially, 21st-century globalization would be at risk under such a scenario.

What probability would you assign to such a scenario?

The dollar's dominance is much like a massive iceberg melting slowly due to global warming. This process typically occurs at the edges and proceeds gradually, but a large chunk can suddenly break off. Figuratively speaking, the danger lies in the possibility that this melting could accelerate dramatically in response to external events, triggering a collapse. I cannot provide you a probability or a date, but I can share my feeling that we're closer to this nightmare scenario than at any other time in my life. I think we should all be much more worried than we have been in the past.

What should investors take away from this conversation?

I have to have two bits of advice. The first is that investors should read more history with an eye toward understanding the differences between the present and the future from the past. History repeats in different ways; studying it allows investors to discern unique shifts in economic structures and politics within the current conjuncture. The second bit of advice comes from my dissertation advisor, who was James Tobin at Yale. He won the Nobel Prize in the early 1980s for his contributions to portfolio theory. During his press conference on winning the prize, a reporter asked him to explain portfolio theory in non-technical terms. Tobin responded simply: “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.”