February 11, 2026

Now, on to the news…

Is America’s financial sector too big? No, argues Judge Glock—and recent critiques of the “financialization” of the economy echo the decades-old, warmed-over arguments of Marxist theorists.

“That theorists can turn the ordinary, time-worn practices of rewarding stockholders, purchasing businesses, and earning profit into instances of ‘financialization’ shows that the term itself has little meaning,” he writes. “Denuded of its more angry and hyperbolic adjectives, it’s just a rhetorical term with which to attack investors and businesses seeking to earn money for themselves without state direction.”

Read his take here.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s political situation is deteriorating rapidly. While he has no personal connection to Jeffrey Epstein, the man he chose to be the British ambassador to the U.S. does.

Appointed to the American ambassadorship in 2024, Peter Mandelson lasted less than nine months in the job. He once described himself as Epstein’s “best pal,” and the two remained friends even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor, a fact publicly known when Mandelson was appointed.

The latest batch of Epstein files indicate that, during his time as business secretary in 2009, Mandelson may have shared confidential information with Epstein, including details about the internal workings of the British government. Mandelson, now under investigation, has since resigned but maintains his innocence.

“The latest revelations have raised grave questions about Starmer’s political judgment—and about why he appointed such a controversial figure to represent the United Kingdom,” Joanna Williams writes. “Labour was elected largely because it was not the Conservative Party, and its chief appeal was moral. Starmer, voters were assured, was virtuous. Unlike its predecessors, a Labour government would be competent and free of scandal.”

That promise, of course, didn’t pan out. Read Williams’s take.

Rising numbers of Americans express skepticism in scientists’ ability to “act in the best interests of the public”—from 13 percent in 2019 to 20 percent today, according to Pew polling. Among the reasons for the loss of public trust are the ongoing “reproducibility crisis” in the social and behavioral sciences, and perceptions of ideological bias.

George J. Borjas and Nate Breznau describe a new study they conducted that offers a partial explanation for the increased skepticism, as well as a proposal to restore trust. Their study analyzed how research teams’ opinions on immigration policy played a role in shaping the methodologies they selected, which in turn influenced their studies’ results.

Their takeaway? “Consumers of social science should read broadly, look at the same question from different angles, and avoid putting too much stock in one study,” they write. And “by posting data and code publicly whenever possible, researchers make it easier for others with different perspectives to weigh in.”

“2026 is the 250th anniversary of 1776. I predict that Democrats will insist that the celebrations highlight America’s failures, not its successes.”

—

Tom W, commenting on Ben Shapiro’s remarks 

Photo credits: Spencer Platt / Staff / Getty Images News via Getty Images