Are the accusations against Mark Lamb likely to be true?

 I am not familiar with Mark Lamb and have never heard his name before today.  But he is accused of, among other things, sending naked pictures of himself to women and then threatening them to say silent.  I asked ChatGPT what it thought.

I just read about Mark Lamb, former Sheriff, who is running for Congress in Arizona's 5th congressional district as a MAGA Republican. He is accused of being a swinger, and luring his friend Matt Hilsabeck into having an affair with Lamb's wife, causing Hilsabeck's wife to divorce him. He is facing other allegations as well, that he sent pornographic pictures of himself to women and threatened them when they complained. Other people have defended Lamb, saying that the accusations are false and causing great harm to Lamb. Assume that he is innocent, and that the alleged victims have not filed any police reports or sued him. (Or maybe they have brought formal charges and the article didn't mention it). Do the accusations seem to be more likely than not to be true, that is by a preponderance of the evidence? The article I read is at https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/home-wrecked-wife-slams-swinger-193941582.html .

Based on the information you've given and the reporting that is publicly available, I don't think it is possible to responsibly conclude that the allegations are "more likely than not" true. But neither can they be dismissed as obviously false.

A few things stand out:

1. The allegations appear to come from multiple people, not just one accuser.
   Reporting summarizing the Arizona Republic investigation says the newspaper reviewed screenshots, chat logs, photographs, and other digital evidence allegedly showing sexually explicit communications involving Mark Lamb. The allegations reportedly come from multiple women and from people connected to Lamb's social circle, not just a single adversary.
2. There appears to be at least some documentary evidence.
   This is different from a pure "he said, she said" accusation. The Republic reportedly claimed to have reviewed messages, images, and other records. If accurately described, that tends to increase the credibility of the allegations compared with unsupported verbal accusations.
3. Lamb denies the allegations.
   His campaign and attorneys reportedly characterize many of the accusations as false, unverified, politically motivated, and harmful to his reputation. No court has found him liable, and no criminal conviction has been reported in connection with these allegations.
4. Absence of lawsuits or criminal charges is not strong evidence either way.
   Many true allegations never result in a police report or lawsuit. Conversely, the fact that allegations are repeated by multiple people does not automatically make them true. People decline to sue or go to police for many reasons, including privacy concerns, cost, emotional strain, or lack of confidence that authorities will act.
5. The source matters.
   The strongest evidence here is not the Daily Beast or Yahoo reposting the story; it is whatever underlying evidence the Arizona Republic actually reviewed. If the Republic genuinely authenticated the screenshots, metadata, participants, and chronology, that would carry significant weight. If it merely received materials from accusers and could not independently verify them, the evidentiary value would be lower. From the summaries I found, I cannot determine exactly how much independent verification occurred.

If I were applying a civil "preponderance of the evidence" standard as a juror and all I knew was what is publicly reported so far, I would say:

• There appears to be enough evidence to take the allegations seriously.
• There does not appear to be enough publicly available information for me to confidently conclude that they are more likely true than false.
• The decisive question would be the authenticity and context of the alleged messages, photos, and other records reviewed by the Arizona Republic. Without personally examining that evidence and hearing Lamb's response to specific exhibits, I would remain uncertain.

So my assessment would be: the allegations are plausible and supported by more than mere rumor, but the publicly available reporting alone does not allow a confident finding that they are proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

===================

Update: Here is more.  https://www.azcentral.com/picture-gallery/news/politics/elections/2026/05/21/mark-lamb-allegations-lds-church-images/89543665007/

I personally generally distrust allegations like this that come out just before elections.  The accuser's name is Jillian Stannard.  (Another accuser's name is Tammy Peacock, who died of a car crash in 2021). Jillian complained about this misconduct in 2018 and she her "proof" is text messages that are more than 7 years old.    

Candace interviews Victor Marx

LIVE With Victor Marx: What Did He Know About 9/10? | Candace Ep 341

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkxa9OUA9K8

I will link to the transcript when it becomes available.

Update: here is the transcript https://podcasts.happyscribe.com/candace/10-candace-ep-341

Here is ChatGPT's analysis:

The interview is basically an hour-long sparring match. Candace is trying to pin Victor Marx down on concrete factual questions, while Victor repeatedly shifts into emotional framing, biography, ministry language, or counter-accusations. The tension comes from Candace wanting “yes/no + specifics,” and Victor wanting to argue motive, character, context, and spiritual intent.

Here are the main friction points.

---

Core Dynamic of the Interview

Candace’s style:

• highly prosecutorial
• keeps returning to timelines and specific statements
• repeatedly asks him to answer directly
• gets visibly irritated when he broadens the discussion

Victor’s style:

• answers indirectly
• reframes questions morally/spiritually
• pivots to his life story, trauma, ministry, or concern for others
• often argues that Candace is unfairly characterizing him

A huge amount of the “sparring” is Candace trying to prevent him from filibustering.

Reddit commenters noticed the same thing:

“Tough to watch this guy think he’s crushing the interview.”

---

Biggest Points of Disagreement

1. Did Victor Marx imply Charlie Kirk was in danger before the assassination?

This is probably the central conflict.

Candace presses Victor on:

• statements he made to Erika Kirk
• comments about security
• comments implying Charlie was “targeted”
• whether he had prior suspicions or knowledge

Victor tries to frame himself as:

• someone concerned about security generally
• someone trying to comfort Erika
• someone reacting after the fact, not predicting beforehand

Candace repeatedly tries to narrow this down to:

“What exactly did you know, and when did you know it?”

She clearly thinks he never fully answers this directly.

---

2. Candace thinks Victor turns every question into a sermon

This happens throughout the interview.

Pattern:

1. Candace asks a factual question.
2. Victor responds with:
   • spiritual warfare language
   • trauma background
   • ministry explanations
   • comments about attacks against Christians
   • long emotional framing

Candace repeatedly interrupts and tries to pull him back.

Examples of the kinds of questions she wants answered directly:

• “Did you say this?”
• “Did you contact Erika?”
• “Why were you there?”
• “What did you mean by that statement?”
• “Did you tell people X?”

Instead of concise answers, Victor often broadens the discussion into:

• persecution
• leadership
• protecting families
• spiritual discernment
• his intentions

Candace’s frustration is basically:

“You are answering around the question.”

---

3. Disagreement Over His Role Around TPUSA and Erika Kirk

Candace strongly implies that Victor inserted himself into the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s death too aggressively.

She focuses on:

• how quickly he became involved
• how close he became to Erika
• public statements he made
• his public positioning afterward

Victor frames this as:

• pastoral care
• protecting a widow
• helping a traumatized family
• stepping in during chaos

Candace keeps circling back to whether:

• he was self-promoting
• he was trying to gain influence
• he was positioning himself politically

One of her sharpest lines is pointing out that he began teasing a Colorado governor run shortly after Charlie’s death.

Victor never really gives a clean explanation for the timing. Instead he argues:

• people asked him to run
• he has a calling
• his motives are being misrepresented

Candace clearly does not buy that explanation.

---

4. Candace Pushes Him on “Intelligence” or Insider-Type Behavior

A recurring undertone is:

• Why did Victor seem so certain about security threats?
• Why did he speak as though he understood hidden dangers?
• Was he implying insider knowledge?

Candace repeatedly tries to force clarity:

• Was this intuition?
• rumor?
• actual information?
• hindsight?
• exaggeration?

Victor largely avoids reducing it to one category.

Instead he speaks in broader terms about:

• experience
• discernment
• patterns
• protecting people
• understanding dangerous environments

Candace appears frustrated because she wants:

“Were you making concrete claims, yes or no?”

---

5. Candace Thinks He Uses Intimidation and Dominance Tactics

This becomes increasingly obvious as the interview goes on.

She seems irritated by:

• his tone
• his confidence
• long monologues
• attempts to control framing
• frequent references to dangerous situations and operational experience

At several points she interrupts specifically to stop him from taking over the conversation.

The dynamic becomes less “interview” and more verbal chess match:

• Candace trying to narrow
• Victor trying to broaden

---

Major Moments Where Candace Thinks He Is Dodging

A. “What exactly did you know before Charlie died?”

This is the biggest one.

Candace wants:

• timeline
• specifics
• concrete warnings
• exact conversations

Victor instead talks about:

• security concerns generally
• intuition
• pastoral concern
• danger around public figures

She repeatedly returns to the question because she clearly feels he never answers it cleanly.

---

B. “Why were you speaking this way to Erika?”

Candace presses him on comments to Erika Kirk that sounded dramatic or ominous.

Victor frames them as:

• comforting
• protective
• pastoral

Candace’s concern is that:

• he may have been shaping narratives emotionally
• or encouraging paranoia/fear

Again, she thinks he responds with emotional framing instead of precise explanation.

---

C. “Are you using ministry language to avoid accountability?”

This is not asked in exactly those words, but it is clearly the underlying conflict.

Candace repeatedly seems to feel that Victor:

• spiritualizes everything
• turns criticism into persecution
• avoids factual precision by moving into emotional or religious rhetoric

Victor rejects that framing completely and argues:

• his faith is genuine
• his life experiences inform how he speaks
• Candace is unfairly twisting intentions

This becomes one of the deepest philosophical disagreements in the interview.

---

D. “Did you leverage Charlie’s death politically?”

Candace hits hard on:

• the governor campaign
• public appearances
• visibility
• timing

Victor never gives a short, direct answer like:

“No, and here’s why.”

Instead he explains:

• leadership calling
• service
• public encouragement
• state problems

Candace clearly sees this as evasive.

---

The Tone Shift

The first part feels tense-but-controlled.

By the middle:

• interruptions increase
• Candace becomes sharper
• Victor becomes more defensive
• both begin talking past each other

By the end, the interview feels less like fact-finding and more like:

• Candace trying to expose inconsistency
• Victor trying to preserve credibility and moral authority

Neither really “wins” the conversation because:

• Candace never gets the concise admissions she wants
• Victor never fully regains control of the narrative

But if you’re specifically interested in the sparring, the key pattern is this:

Candace’s recurring accusation:

“You are not answering the actual question.”

Victor’s recurring defense:

“You are stripping away context and misunderstanding my intent.”

The background of Victor Marx

Can you tell me about Victor Marx's background? I know he was in the Marines and that he is now running for governor of Colorado, and he may be the pastor of a church, but that is it. What has he done between getting out of the Marines and now?

Yes. Based on Victor Marx’s own statements and documents that have been publicly released, he appears to have originally gone by the name Vaughn Victor Kennedy (sometimes spelled “Vaughn” rather than “Victor” first in records), and later changed or adopted the surname “Marx” from his biological father.

According to explanations published by Marx and his campaign:

• His biological father’s surname was Marx.
• He was reportedly raised primarily by a stepfather or father figure named Kennedy (“Mr. K” in some of his stories).
• He used the surname Kennedy during his youth and Marine Corps service.
• After reconnecting with his biological father as an adult, he began using the surname Marx.

A controversy emerged because:

• Marx released a DD-214 military discharge form showing the name Vaughn Victor Kennedy.
• Critics argued this contradicted the public identity “Victor Marx.”
• Marx and supporters responded that he later reclaimed his biological father’s surname after reconciliation.

His campaign website specifically says:

“Victor changed his last name from Kennedy to Marx later in life upon reconnecting with his biological father…”

There does not appear to be reliable public evidence that “Victor Marx” was his legal birth name. The best-supported public information currently available suggests:

• Birth / early-life name: Vaughn Victor Kennedy
• Later adopted public/legal name: Victor Marx

One additional oddity is that Marx has publicly stated his biological father’s name was “Karl Marx,” which naturally attracts attention because of the famous philosopher. I could not find independent verification of that beyond Marx’s own statements and biographies connected to him.

Has Victor Marx ever claimed to have led or been involved with commando style raids to rescue sex trafficking victims?

Yes. Victor Marx has repeatedly portrayed himself and his ministry as being involved in dangerous, tactical-style anti-trafficking operations and rescues, sometimes using language that sounds very close to “commando raids.”

On his ministry websites and in interviews, he describes:

• entering “dangerous places,”
• “hunting predators,”
• “physically rescuing” women and children,
• working in war zones,
• and collaborating with law enforcement and special operations personnel.

For example, his official biography says:

“Victor focuses his attention to hunting predators, and rescuing, restoring and empowering women and children…”

His organization, ATP Ministries, also claims involvement in anti-trafficking efforts internationally, including in places like Iraq, Syria, Cambodia, and Haiti.

In public appearances and promotional material over the years, Marx has cultivated a persona that blends:

• military/tactical imagery,
• anti-trafficking activism,
• Christianity,
• and “high-risk missions.”

He has also promoted a program called “Skull Games,” where volunteers and investigators assist in identifying possible trafficking victims and predators online. Critics have compared the style of these operations to organizations like Our Rescue founded by Tim Ballard, which became controversial over allegations that some rescue narratives were exaggerated or theatrically presented.

However, there is an important distinction:

• I could not find reliable evidence that Marx personally claimed to be leading literal armed military raids in the way special forces units conduct hostage rescues.
• But he absolutely has publicly implied or stated involvement in physically dangerous rescue missions, extractions, and anti-trafficking interventions.

Critics argue that:

• many of the rescue claims are vague,
• the numbers are difficult to independently verify,
• and the tactical branding can create an impression more dramatic than the documented evidence supports.

One particularly controversial claim attributed to Marx’s organization is that they have “physically rescued over 45,000 women and children.” Critics say there is no independent verification for numbers on that scale.

So the fair summary is:

• Yes, Victor Marx has publicly presented himself as participating in dangerous anti-trafficking rescue operations.
• His branding and storytelling often evoke “commando” or special-operations-style imagery.
• But publicly available evidence for specific armed rescue raids led personally by Marx is limited and disputed.

Has Victor Marx ever claimed to have threatened to kill Jimmy Barbeque, the warlord in Haiti, or in the alternative to have prayed and laid hands on him, both in an attempt to make sure an orphanage in Haiti was protected from criminals?

Yes — there is public evidence that Victor Marx has been connected to both kinds of statements, although the sourcing and context matter a lot.

According to a long interview between Candace Owens and Corby Hall, Corby claimed that Victor Marx discussed using a rifle to kill or capture Haitian gang leader Jimmy “Barbecue” Chérizier in connection with protecting an orphanage in Haiti. Corby described Victor allegedly wanting to shoot intruders climbing the orphanage fence and later saying the target would specifically be Jimmy Barbecue.

In the transcript, Corby says:

• Marx allegedly talked about “blow[ing] the head off” someone climbing the orphanage fence,
• then shifted to saying he would “execute or capture” Jimmy Barbecue,
• supposedly as part of protecting the orphanage from gang violence.

Candace framed this as evidence that Marx was behaving recklessly or cultivating a vigilante/mercenary persona. However:

• this was Corby Hall’s account of private conversations,
• not a direct recording of Marx making the statements,
• and I could not find independent confirmation that Marx publicly threatened to kill Jimmy Barbecue.

There is evidence that Marx publicly discussed interacting directly with Haitian gang leaders, including Barbecue, during efforts to protect orphanages and civilians in Haiti. A Christian news report about Marx’s Haiti activities says he sought direct interaction with gang leaders including Jimmy “Barbecue” Chérizier as part of protecting vulnerable people and ministries.

I could not find a reliable source confirming that Marx publicly claimed to have literally “laid hands on” Jimmy Barbecue in a prayer session. But that claim would be broadly consistent with Marx’s ministry style:

• he frequently speaks about prayer, deliverance, spiritual warfare, and ministering directly to dangerous people,
• and he has publicly emphasized praying over gang members, traffickers, addicts, and violent individuals.

Separately, Marx’s ministry openly acknowledged involvement in efforts to protect an orphanage in Haiti from violent gangs. His ministry website described assembling “elite professionals” to defend or evacuate children threatened by gangs.

So the careful summary is:

• Yes, there is public reporting and testimony tying Victor Marx to discussions about protecting Haitian orphanages from gangs associated with Jimmy Barbecue.
• Yes, Corby Hall specifically alleged that Marx talked about killing or capturing Jimmy Barbecue.
• Marx himself has publicly described direct engagement with dangerous Haitian gang leaders and high-risk humanitarian/security operations.
• I could not independently verify a direct claim by Marx that he personally threatened to kill Barbecue or personally laid hands on him in prayer.

Summary of Info about Victor Marx

 Candace Owens did a podcast where she interviewed Corby Hall about Victor Marx. Can you summarize what Candace and Corby said about Victor? These are the links: https://podcasts.happyscribe.com/candace/victor-marx-the-man-who-weaponized-faith and https://candaceowensfan.substack.com/p/candace-interviews-corby-hall-whose . And can you comment on whether you think Corby Hall is mentally unstable?

In the interview on Candace Owens’ podcast transcript, Candace Owens and Corby Hall discussed a long series of allegations about Victor Marx.

The core themes of the discussion were:

• Corby claimed Marx manipulated people through religious authority and spiritual warfare language.
• He described a bizarre “deliverance” or exorcism-style session where Marx allegedly asked him to identify demons and “lies” supposedly influencing him. Corby said he entered a trance-like state during the interaction and felt psychologically manipulated.
• Corby also alleged that Marx exaggerated or misrepresented connections involving tactical weapons, ministries, donors, and security projects.
• A large portion of the interview centered on proposed firearm deals, school resource officer rifles, ministry fundraising, and alleged discussions about moving weapons into Haiti. These were allegations made by Corby; the available reporting does not show criminal charges against Marx related to those claims.
• Candace’s framing throughout the interview was highly sympathetic to Corby and highly critical of Marx. She repeatedly portrayed Marx as someone who allegedly “weaponized faith,” used intimidation tactics, and cultivated a public image that differed from what insiders allegedly experienced.

The interview was not structured as a neutral investigation. It was adversarial toward Marx from the start, and much of the evidence discussed was anecdotal, based on personal recollections, recordings, emails, and interpretations rather than independently verified findings.

As for whether Corby Hall is “mentally unstable,” I can’t responsibly diagnose someone from podcasts or online interviews. What I can say is:

• In the interview, Corby described experiences that sound emotionally intense and at times unusual — including trance-like reactions, spiritual warfare beliefs, and strong fears about manipulation.
• Some listeners online viewed him as credible and courageous, while others thought parts of his story sounded exaggerated, conspiratorial, or inconsistent.
• There is currently no public evidence I found showing a formal mental-health diagnosis or professional assessment of him.
• The discussion around all three figures — Candace Owens, Corby Hall, and Victor Marx — has become heavily entangled with online conspiracy communities and emotionally charged narratives, which makes objective evaluation difficult.

A more cautious conclusion would be: Corby Hall appears to be a highly emotional and controversial witness making serious allegations, but there is not enough reliable public evidence to conclude he is mentally unstable.

Can you summarize what Victor Marx's platform for governor of Colorado is from his website Victor2026.com or other sources?

Victor2026.com presents Victor Marx as a conservative, outsider-style Republican candidate focused on “faith, family, and freedom.” His platform is built around public safety, affordability, government accountability, veterans’ issues, and opposition to what he describes as ideological or bureaucratic overreach.

Here are the major themes of his platform:

Public Safety and “Law & Order”

This appears to be one of the central pillars of his campaign.

Marx says he wants to:

• Increase support for law enforcement
• Crack down on fentanyl trafficking and organized crime
• Expand cooperation with federal agencies on border-related crime
• Increase penalties for trafficking offenses
• Prioritize victims’ rights and tougher prosecution policies

He repeatedly frames Colorado as becoming less safe and argues that current leadership has been too lenient on crime.

Cost of Living and Housing

His website emphasizes that Colorado has become unaffordable for working families.

His proposals include:

• Cutting taxes
• Reducing regulations
• Reforming housing policies to encourage development
• Supporting job growth in trades, manufacturing, and energy
• Opposing what he calls government waste and corruption

The rhetoric is strongly populist and anti-bureaucratic, emphasizing that “government should serve the people.”

Energy and Natural Resources

Marx supports an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy:

• Continued oil and gas production
• Expansion of renewables like wind and solar
• Interest in modular nuclear power
• Protection of Colorado water rights
• Wildfire mitigation and forest management

This is more pro-energy-development than Colorado Democrats, but less purely fossil-fuel-focused than some traditional Republican campaigns.

Veterans and Military Issues

Because of his Marine background, veterans’ issues are heavily emphasized.

He proposes:

• Expanded mental health and long-term care for veterans
• Veteran job-transition programs
• More coordination with the VA
• Rural satellite clinics for veteran healthcare

Education

His education messaging focuses on:

• Career and trade education
• Teacher pay increases
• Cutting administrative overhead
• Linking education more directly to workforce development

Faith and Cultural Issues

Although the site avoids some of the more inflammatory rhetoric common in culture-war politics, Marx clearly presents himself as a Christian conservative candidate.

The campaign repeatedly references:

• “Protecting faith”
• “Protecting freedom”
• Restoring values
• Opposition to ideological governance

His messaging is designed to appeal to religious conservatives without being exclusively focused on social issues like abortion or LGBT policy.

Political Style

Marx positions himself as an outsider rather than a career politician. He often compares establishment politics unfavorably to his background in ministry, military service, and humanitarian work. During the GOP primary season, he skipped at least one televised debate and argued that party insiders were biased against outsider candidates.

Coverage from outlets like Axios and The Washington Post has generally described him as part of the more populist and socially conservative wing of the Colorado GOP.

Online reaction has been sharply divided:

• Supporters praise his focus on crime, veterans, and outsider status.
• Critics describe him as too religious, combative, or ideologically extreme for Colorado statewide politics.

Who is Victor Marx?

 

Victor Marx

(Image source: https://ballotpedia.org/Victor_Marx)

I was at an event where this guy was speaking this morning about his candidacy for Governor of Colorado on the Republic ticket this fall.  I find him very mysterious.  I don't really like his speaking style and instead of really listening, I was reading various internet articles about him.   This is what I have read, and some of this I may be misremembering, so all of these points need fact-checked.  I am not trying to defame him and I may end up voting for him. 

Fact check these points:

• He is the pastor of a Calvary Church in Colorado Springs.
• He has changed his name since birth.  (The ballotpedia image is labeled Vaughn Marx although that may be a typo).
• He is a former Marine, but only served for two years when he was honorably discharged.
• He has lead vigilante commando raids in Thailand or Cambodia to rescue sex trafficking victims.
• A guy name Corby Hall, who is a small time gun manufacturer, used to see him as a mentor but they have had a falling out.  Victor Marx claims that Corby is mentally unbalanced and that Corby has threatened to kill him.  Corby has admitted to drug use in the past and to formerly being suicidal.
• Candace Owens interviewed Corby Hall about Victor Marx.  She also offered to interview Victor Marx but he declined.
• Corby Hall claimed that Victor Marx did a quasi-exorcism of him which he called a "Retooling Prayer".  In this prayer Victor said that were 3 demons "attached" to Corby (which is different from "possession"), and he ordered angels to rip the arms off of the demons.  Candace Owens speculated that Victor put Corby into a hypnotic trance to question him about his secret fears and traumas.
• Corby Hall claimed that at one point Victor wanted to buy his gun manufacturing company which Corby thought was worth $20 million, but Victor only would pay $2 million for a 51% share and Victor was coercing him and even threatened to punch him.
• Victor Marx bought a rifle from Corby Hall which he was going to use to assassinate Jimmy Barbeque, the warlord who runs Haiti, but instead he interviewed Jimmy Barbeque and prayed over him by laying hands on him and asked God to bless Jimmy and fill him with the Holy Spirit.  Since then Jimmy Barbeque has made sure that an orphanage in Haiti has been protected from criminals.
• Victor Marx wanted to buy 50,000 guns from Corby Hall to send to the IDF (Israel Defense Forces).
• Victor Marx was good friends with Charlie Kirk at one point but they had a falling out.
• On September 10, 2025, just minutes after Charlie Kirk was assassinated in Utah, there was an attempted assassination in Colorado. (Unclear on details).
• Soon after Charlie Kirk's death, Victor posted condolences to Erica Kirk on X (or other social media), the first person to do so.
• The day after Charlie Kirk's death, Victor visited Erica Kirk in her house.  There were pictures of this meeting and posted on Instagram.
• Victor Marx was supposed to participate in a debate at Colorado Christian University on May 19, but he dropped out because he said that Michael "Brownie" Brown (formerly head of FEMA in 2006) was biased against him.
• Some high profile megachurch pastors in Colorado have endorsed him, namely Jim Burgen of Flatirons Community Church and Jeff Swartzentraub of Brave Church.

Like I said, these are all unproven allegations that need researched.

Despite all that, I am unclear on what Victor Marx actually stands for. He has a website at Victor2026.com.  He likes guns and cops and doesn't like criminals.  And he wants to cut government waste.

Government Debt is good

Source: https://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2026/05/10/government-debt-is-not-a-burden-on-future-generations/

This chart caught my attention, so I am reposting it as fair use.

The problem isn't debt, the problem is that we are not spending enough, so let's make the debt even higher!  And since one person's debt is another person's wealth, let's create more wealth by going deeper into debt.  The sky is the limit.

 

The One in which I play Petroleum Economist

 I have some questions about gas prices. When do you expect them to return to normal, i.e. under $3 per gallon. And at what point will we see "demand destruction", which I define as a noticeable drop in GDP caused by 1) people not driving or flying or 2) by not purchasing items that are more expensive because of the extra transportation costs?

Here’s the blunt reality: you’re asking two different questions—price normalization and economic breaking points—and right now they’re moving in opposite directions.

---

1) When could gas fall back under $3?

Short answer: probably not in 2026, unless something big changes

• The U.S. average is currently around $4.4–$4.5/gal and rising
• A key driver is geopolitical disruption (Iran / Strait of Hormuz) choking supply
• The U.S. Energy Secretary recently said sub-$3 may not happen until 2027

Why prices aren’t falling (despite earlier forecasts)

Earlier in 2026, models expected lower prices due to rising supply . That’s still structurally true—but:

• Oil is now ~$110+ per barrel vs ~$60–70 expected baseline
• Supply disruptions are overwhelming the “normal” supply growth story
• Inventories are tightening going into summer

What would push gas back under $3?

You’d likely need multiple things at once:

• Resolution of Middle East conflict (biggest factor right now)
• Oil back down into ~$60–70 range
• Stable refinery capacity and normal inventories

Without that combination, $3 gas is basically a 2027+ story, not a near-term one.

---

2) When does “demand destruction” happen?

You defined it well—a real economic slowdown caused by energy costs. The key insight:

👉 We are NOT there yet. Not even close.

Evidence right now:

• Gas demand is still flat to slightly rising (+1% YoY)
• Even at $5 gas in 2022, demand barely fell (~0.5%)
• Analysts say no meaningful demand destruction yet despite big price increases

---

3) So where IS the breaking point?

There are three different “thresholds,” and they matter differently:

A) Behavioral demand destruction (mild)

People:

• Drive less
• Cancel trips
• Switch to cheaper fuel

Likely range:
👉 ~$4.50–$5.50 gas

We’re just entering this zone now (you’re seeing early signs like reduced travel plans)

---

B) Economic demand destruction (your definition)

This is where it hits GDP via:

• Reduced consumption
• Higher transport costs feeding inflation
• Lower discretionary spending

Likely range:
👉 ~$5–$6+ sustained gas

Why:

• Fuel starts meaningfully squeezing household budgets
• Trucking, airlines, logistics pass costs through broadly

We are approaching this zone but not fully in it yet

---

C) Hard demand destruction (recession-level)

This is when oil markets actually break demand globally.

• Some analysts say it may take $150–$200 oil to force this
• That corresponds roughly to $6–$8+ gasoline

At that point:

• GDP slows materially
• Freight demand drops
• Air travel declines sharply

---

4) Why demand is so resilient (this cycle)

This part is important and a bit counterintuitive:

• Gasoline is a smaller % of income than in the past
• Cars are more fuel efficient
• Many jobs still require commuting (inelastic demand)
• People cut other spending first, not driving

So instead of immediate GDP decline, you often get:

“silent demand destruction” → discretionary spending drops before driving does

---

Bottom line

• Sub-$3 gas: unlikely before 2027 unless geopolitics resolve quickly
• Early demand destruction: starts around $4.5–$5 (we’re entering it)
• GDP-impacting demand destruction: around $5–$6 sustained
• Recession-level destruction: likely $6–$8+ gas / $150–$200 oil

---

If you want, I can break this down specifically for Colorado (since prices there are usually below the national average) and what thresholds would hit your local economy first.

What are the odds that we would reach recession-level destruction, which would be oil over $150 per barrel and gas over $6 per gallon, in the next 6 months?

Short answer: possible, but not the base case. A reasonable estimate right now is on the order of 20–35% over the next 6 months for hitting both ~$150 oil and ~$6 gasoline in the U.S.

Let me break down why that’s not higher—and why it’s not negligible either.

---

What has to happen to reach that level

To get to recession-level demand destruction, you’d typically need:

• Crude oil ≥ $150/barrel (we’re roughly ~$100–110 now)
• U.S. gasoline ≥ $6/gallon (currently ~$4.4–4.5)
• And importantly: stay there long enough (not just a spike)

That requires a major supply shock, not just tight markets.

---

Scenario breakdown (next 6 months)

1) Base case (most likely) — ~65–75%

• Oil: ~$90–120
• Gas: ~$3.75–$5.00

What this assumes:

• No full closure of the Strait of Hormuz
• Some supply response (U.S., OPEC+)
• Demand stays resilient

👉 This is painful but not recession-triggering by itself.

---

2) Stress case — ~20–30%

• Oil: $120–150
• Gas: $5–6

What this assumes:

• Ongoing geopolitical tension (e.g., partial disruption in the Middle East)
• Shipping risks, insurance spikes, but not total supply cutoff

👉 This is where you start seeing:

• Airline cutbacks
• Reduced freight volume
• Slower GDP growth

But still not full “hard” demand destruction.

---

3) Crisis case (your scenario) — ~10–20%

• Oil: $150–200
• Gas: $6–8

This requires something like:

• Major disruption in the Strait of Hormuz
• Direct conflict involving a major producer like Iran
• Or a combination of supply loss + panic buying

👉 This is when:

• GDP contraction becomes likely
• Travel drops sharply
• Freight and consumer demand fall

---

Why the probability isn’t higher

Even with current tensions, there are stabilizers:

1) Spare capacity exists

• OPEC+ (especially Saudi Arabia) can increase output
• U.S. shale can respond, though with a lag

2) Governments intervene early

• Strategic Petroleum Reserve releases
• Diplomatic pressure to stabilize flows

3) Demand weakens before extremes

• High prices themselves reduce consumption before $150 is reached
• That acts like a natural cap

---

Why the probability isn’t near zero

There are real tail risks:

• The Strait of Hormuz handles ~20% of global oil
• Even partial disruption spikes prices fast
• Markets can overshoot fundamentals due to panic

Historically, oil spikes are non-linear:

• $110 → $150 can happen much faster than $70 → $110

---

Timing matters (this is key)

Even if we hit:

• $150 oil
• $6 gas

…it might be brief (weeks) rather than sustained.

👉 For true recession-level “demand destruction,” you usually need:

• 2–4+ months at those levels

That lowers the probability of your scenario meaningfully impacting GDP within just 6 months.

---

Bottom line

• Chance of touching those levels briefly: ~20–35%
• Chance of sustained levels causing real demand destruction: ~10–20%
• Most likely outcome: elevated but sub-crisis prices

The One in which I play Hydropower Analyst

 what are the odds that the water level at Lake Powell will drop below the minimum power pool in the next 90 days?

The best available data says: the odds of Lake Powell dropping below minimum power pool in the next ~90 days are very low—but not zero. Here’s a grounded breakdown based on current 2026 forecasts.

---

📊 Where things stand right now

• Current elevation (early May 2026): about 3,526 ft
• Minimum power pool: ~3,490 ft

👉 That’s roughly 36 feet above the shutdown level.

---

📉 What official forecasts say

Most probable scenario (government modeling)

• Drops to about 3,497 ft by Sept 30
• Falls below power pool (~3,490 ft) around December 2026

Worse-case (low inflow scenario)

• Could drop below power pool as early as late summer (Aug–Sept)

Near-term warning

• Officials say it could approach “critical elevations” as early as June 2026 without intervention

---

🎯 So what are the odds in the next 90 days?

Translating all that into a probability-style answer:

✅ Most likely outcome (roughly 70–90% chance)

• Lake stays above minimum power pool through the next 90 days
• Declines continue, but not fast enough to cross the threshold yet

⚠️ Plausible but less likely (maybe ~10–30%)

• It gets dangerously close (within a few feet)
• Especially if:
  • runoff stays extremely low
  • summer heat accelerates evaporation
  • releases aren’t reduced

🚨 Low-probability worst case (probably <10%)

• It actually drops below 3,490 ft within 90 days
• This would require:
  • extremely poor inflow (well below already bad forecasts)
  • and/or management decisions that allow faster drawdown

---

⚙️ Important factor: human intervention

Unlike a natural lake, Lake Powell is actively managed.

Right now:

• Releases are being reduced to slow the drop
• Upstream reservoirs may send extra water to prop it up

👉 That significantly lowers the short-term risk.

---

🧠 Bottom line

• Next 90 days: very unlikely to drop below minimum power pool
• Late 2026: real risk (this is where most projections cluster)
• Extreme scenario: possible but not the baseline expectation