Tag Archives: economy

Everyone’s a reactionary in their own backyard

I’ve blogged before about Ezra Klein’s abundance agenda. To recap: Ezra Klein asks the following questions:

  • Why are so many people moving out of blue states and into red states?
  • Why do red states grow faster than blue states?
  • Why do blue states have so many problems with homelessness?
  • Why can’t blue states build train lines and green infrastructure on time and on budget?

Klein concludes that liberals being maligned as “bad on the economy,” is not entirely unfair, and that Blue State policies have in many cases reduced growth and made people’s lives materially worse off. A fixation on bureaucracy is a hamstring to business. For liberals to win, Ezra wants them to not just be “not as bad” as conservatives, but he wants them to embrace a pro-growth mindset and pro-growth policies. These policies would deliver more energy, more housing, and more jobs without ever-increasing government expenditures.

I feel I can conclusively say that Klein has lost the argument, at least in online left-leaning circles. Instead, Bernie Sanders and the anti-growth crowd are winning people over to the idea that we need to *further* restrict businesses, further increase government bureaucracy, and thereby further reduce growth.

Bernie doesn’t want to fix electricity prices by improving generation and transmission like Klein does, he wants a moratorium on building datacenters.

Bernie doesn’t want to fix housing by allowing private companies to build more of it like Klein does, he wants to prevent companies from buying houses.

Bernie doesn’t want to grow the economic pie like Klein does, he wants to shrink and reslice it.

But Bernie wouldn’t have a microphone if people weren’t willing to listen to him, and in online left-leaning circles, Bernie is listened to, not Klein.

I think it’s because fundementally, people are reactionary in their own backyards. It’s all well and good to say we should encourage economic growth. But new businesses compete with old residents for land, water, and electricity. And so old residents complain that new businesses push up prices, and demand that new businesses be stopped completely. This pattern is universal and as old as civilization itself. But the modern American left is now overwhelmingly urban, and urban areas are where new businesses want to build, so the American left is now overwhelmingly anti-business.

I just want to rattle off a few arguments I’ve seen online about building, why these arguments don’t hold water, and why I think Klein will not manage to bring his Abundance Agenda into prominence.

Bernie has recently called for a moratorium on new datacenters, to protect consumers from increased electricity prices. I’ve seen a lot of the online left that considers itself “pro-growth” defend this, on the principle that:

  • “Data centers produce economic growth, but not for the people who pay the higher electricity prices.”

Because data centers are “different,” it’s Good to ban new ones, it’s not anti-growth at all it’s just anti-“bad”-growth. To which I’d say:

  • “________ produce economic growth, but not for the people who pay the higher electricity prices.”

Insert factories, electric trains, mass transit, a new University campus, or literally *anything else* and this argument is the same. This isn’t an argument against data centers, it’s an argument against any economic growth whatsoever. When things change there will always be winners and losers. When economies grow, some individuals don’t get the full benefit of that growth. But the idea of the Abundance Agenda was that the losers need to suck it up for the greater good, the price of your house isn’t worth blocking new housing and increasing the homeless rate of the wider city.

When it’s “other people” blocking housing and causing problems, it’s easy to demonize them and say they’re small-minded, wrong-headed, etc. But suddenly when it’s your back yard, and its your electricity bill, then the same people who demonized NIMBYs become NIMBYs themselves.

Of course it’s different, because THOSE OTHER people didn’t have reasonable concerns, they were motivated solely by greed and stupidity. WE however are smart and reasonable, all our concerns are well-thought out. This is how everyone thinks, but a lot of online liberal spaces are incredibly insular, and so don’t realize that their “reasonable” complaints are nothing new, but are just part and parcel of the NIMBY handbook going back decades.

If you say that new homes aren’t needed, and developers are just greedy, then there’s a reasonable amount of the online left who will dogpile you for your stupidity. New homes ARE needed, homelessness proves that there aren’t enough homes for everyone. Building new homes reduces home prices and increasing housing.

But if you say data centers aren’t needed, suddenly you’re on the 60 side of a 60/40 issue. A minority of the online left has no issue with data centers. But there are enough anti-AI people, anti-Silicon Valley people, anti-everyone rich (which therefor means anti-AI because rich people own and are the face of AI companies), and just plain closeted NIMBYs that being against new data centers is a “reasonable” belief in these spaces, where being against new housing wouldn’t be.

A few years ago, Silicon Valley and techies in general were seen as a staunch bastion of liberalism, proof that LIBERALS were actually the economically smart ones and not conservatives. A single election was all it took to change that, with a few techies siding with Trump, and with others not being sufficiently *anti*-Trump, the Tech sector has lost its shine and is now placed by many liberals in the same bin as the steel sector, the automotive sector, or even the oil and gas sector. These are just “bad people” who make money by making the world worse. So if they want AI, some people will reflexively oppose them, and supporting AI comes at a social cost in these spaces, even if you strenuously state how much you oppose the techies and the wider Silicon Valley elite.

With this shift, Silicon Valley can now be railed against in liberal spaces in just the same way as Ford or US Steel. These idiots want to build a new thing? It won’t bring any real jobs, it will dirty up our town, it will raise our prices, and they’re just making money by being evil anyway.

So blocking any new silicon valley thing becomes a socially defensible position, where 4 years ago it wasn’t. This is how coalition politics shake out on a local scale, people don’t weigh up the real-world costs and benefits of a position, they weigh up the *social costs* and the *social benefits* of a position. Supporting AI carries a social cost, opposing it carries a social benefit. That decides how the coalition reacts to AI much more strongly that the real-world economics of the situation.

Because simply put, a data center moratorium is a dumb as a factory moratorium. I, personally, won’t be enriched by a new factory being built. And most modern factories are so automated that they provide vanishingly few direct jobs, they aren’t the assembly lines with workmen that people think about, they’re honestly about as automated as a data center these days.

But my area will benefit from the increased investment, prices will go down as supply of goods increases, and I think other people should be allowed to make money by investing just as I’d like to be allowed to make money by investing myself. I wouldn’t want my dream restaurant to be blocked by NIMBYs who don’t want me bringing traffic to their part of town, so I don’t think it’s right to block other people’s economic activities even though a new data center will bring more electricity demand to me.

Some try to argue that data centers don’t produce anything real, that all AI is a bubble. That still isn’t a reason to block data centers. YOU DO NOT KNOW how the AI race will shake out, nobody does. The point of capitalism is that everyone makes their bets, and we find out later who won. If you want to bet against AI, short NVIDIA, or short Microsoft, Google, and Meta. You can bet against them and make money if you’re right, but you don’t know you’re right, and if the AI boosters are right and you block them from building datacenters, you’re impoverishing us all just like when you block housing, or a new factory, or a new University campus. You’re reducing economic growth because you think you know better but won’t put your money where your mouth is by shorting the stock, instead taking the easy way of blocking the business.

But this has been a rambly post about my opinions. The point is that these are the arguments I’ve seen all over left-leaning online spaces. The arguments are overwhelmingly anti-capitalist, anti-business, and anti-growth. Any sector that is not seen as explicitly left-leaning becomes a socially acceptable target for attack and NIMBY policies. This is antithetical to Klein’s abundance agenda. This is why I thought his agenda would not win in the left-of-center mind space, and I’m even more confident of that prediction now.

Coalitions aren’t build by reasoned argument, they are build by the social costs and benefits of holding a specific position. Techies have been etched with the scarlet letter (T for Trump, natch), and so opposing anything and everything they do has a social cost in left-of-center spaces, regardless of the reasoned arguments that growth is good for the people’s prosperity. Basically all businesses are etched with the scarlet C for conservative, and so opposing business is generally in vogue as well. Klein’s agenda relies on allowing businesses to get their way, to improve all our lives by letting business do business. That isn’t going to fly in the modern left, and I doubt Klein can change it.

Revealed Preference, Revealed Belief

Revealed preference is a very important economic concept because quite simply: talk is cheap. You cannot poll people on what they economically most want, because humans are want to lie about ourselves so that we appear more noble, more virtuous, and so on. You cannot poll people, instead you have to look at what people *do*.

To explain revealed preference in simple terms: actions speak louder than words. People like to claim that they eat healthily, that they care about what they’re putting into their bodies. But many of those very same people fill their shopping cart with junk food at the expense of all else. So while they claim to eat healthily, they are revealed to eat junk food. Their revealed preference is that they prefer the taste of junk food over the benefits of healthy food, but you wouldn’t know it by talking to them.

At a societal level, revealed preference also shows up whenever popular causes force people to put their money where their mouth is. Reducing plastic waste polls really well, and large segments of society claim that they would happily pay more for a biodegradable option rather than pay less for a plastic option. But the data from supermarkets doesn’t bear this out, with nearly all consumers continuing to prefer a cheaper plastic option when available compared to a more expensive biodegradable option.

So when economists try to understand what drives people’s economic activity, whether it’s what they buy, where they work, or how they commute, one cannot rely on what people *say* they do, you must instead find out what they *actually* do. Because the gap between words and actions is massive and we all want to appear more noble than we truly are.

With revealed preference comes the tantalizing, but tricky prospect of studying *revealed belief*. Revealed *preference* is just showing what *actions* people take that are contrary to their statements. But revealed *belief* would be about showing *the reasoning behind those actions*.

To give an example, lets dissect the junk food vs healthy food choice. You might find people who adamantly claim that they eat healthy food *not just* for their health. They may claim that healthy food tastes better, is more convenient, and is even cheaper than junk food. But if that same person is revealed to mostly eat junk food, we can surmise that their stated beliefs about healthy food vs junk food (that it tastes better, is more convenient, and even cheaper) are also wrong.

Such a person who claims to eat healthy food but only eats junk food clearly has significant cognitive dissonance, or is just *lying* in order to seem healthier. It isn’t just that their actions belie their beliefs, rather their *revealed beliefs* are contradictory to their *stated beliefs*. They probably don’t actually believe healthy food is tastier and cheaper, they just say that to try to further the lie that they eat only healthy food. Their real belief is that junk food is tastier and cheaper, that’s why they buy it and eat it.

This *revealed beliefs* thing is tricky though because there could be several confounding factors. Say someone *only states* that they believe healthy food is tastier than junk food. If they are then revealed later to be buying junk food, is it because they actually don’t think healthy food is tastier? Or is it because the cheapness of junk food and the expensiveness of healthy food outweighs taste considerations? There can always be some other reason that people take their actions, outside of their stated reasons.

But with recent events, I do think I’ve seen a mass example of revealed beliefs. And it’s with tariffs.

When Trump was coming on the scene, first in 2016 and again in 2024, economists and political commentators from both sides of the Atlantic argued passionately against his tariffs on every conceivable level. Trump’s tariffs weren’t just a good idea taken too far, rather *any tariffs at all* would harm consumers and depress the American economy to unimaginable levels. Even tariffs against geopolitical foes like China should be avoided, as such tariffs harmed America a lot more than they harmed China, and so ultimately would be counterproductive.

Yet today in 2026 I see *many of those exact same people*, primarily from the European and Canadian parts of the Atlantic, argue passionately that the EU and other nations *must respond in kind* to Trump’s tariffs. That Europe and Canada should raise massive counter-tariffs against Trump, equal or greater in value to whatever he is levying against them, and specifically targeted at America’s major industries. When Trump’s team met EU officials and agreed to a “deal” whereby the US would raise tariffs and the EU would not respond in kind, this was seen as a disaster, a surrender, and a damning indictment.

It seems clear that there is a revealed belief going on here. These transatlantic thinkers claim that tariffs hurt America more than they hurt the tariffed countries, but if that were the case, then counter-tariffs would hurt the EU and Canada more than they’d hurt America. The “solution” to Trump’s trade war would then be to do nothing at all. LET Trump tariff every nation to high heaven, he’s primarily hurting America after all, and don’t respond in kind under any circumstances. Don’t tariff American products, don’t go after American businesses, don’t do anything differently than you’d normally do, because any such anti-trade measure would harm your own countries more than it harms America.

But the revealed belief here is that Trump’s tariffs *do* harm other countries more than they harm America, because counter-tariffs and other trade barriers are being called upon, on the assumption that they will harm America more than they’ll harm other nations. It seems that many transatlantic thinkers are revealing that all the rhetoric around tariffs was a Noble Lie. All the claims about how tariffs are ineffective and self-destructive were lies meant to dissuade the public from supporting tariffs in the first place. But now that the tariffs are out of the bag, the Noble Lie has no more use, and the Awful Truth about tariffs, that they are harmful to one’s own nation, but are effective at countering trade imbalances, has come to the fore.

Noble Lies such as this beclown the person saying the lie. They reveal the liar to be a hypocrite and untrustworthy. If you found that the person who goes on and on about healthy food was actually eating nothing but junk food, you’d probably never again trust their recommendations to you about healthy eating. And likewise, a lot of poli/econ commentators have lost a lot of credibility in my eyes by going back on their pre-Trump claims about tariffs. By revealing that they never believed those things in the first place, they reveal (to me at least) that I should never trust them again going forward.

“GDP is bullshit”

Transcription: “GDP is also a bullshit metric. If I buy $100 of flouride, add water, buy some bottles, repackage it as Crest Mouthwash, and sell it for $15/bottle, I’ve generated like $1500 of GDP. That’s not really adding value, that’s enriching shareholders at the cost of people who don’t realize they’re being robbed.”

Response: my guy, that’s literally the definition of adding value.

Now to be fair, this comment was downvoted when I found it, meaning more people disagreed than agreed, but still, this sentiment about “adding value” is something I see all over the internet in anti-capitalist spaces. People will literally explain adding value, then say something adds absolutely no value.

Even a marxist would agree that the labor required to add water, buy bottles, and package something adds value to the product. And a capitalist would say that if this poster successfully created mouthwash that people would buy for $15/bottle, then they’ve added value to that $100 of fluoride. And if this poster actually did this experiment, and made money off of it, they could quickly start a company and become rich.

But they can’t do this, because it’s actually quite difficult to create good, quality fluoridated mouthwash, and they have no skills besides complaining on the Internet.

Still, they have explicitly defined a process in which a low-cost good is turned into a highly desirable product, a process which both a labor-obsessed marxist and a capital-obsessed capitalist would say has “added value” to that good, and have said that it isn’t “real” value. They extend this to say that GDP is bullshit.

“GDP-is-bullshit”ism has seemed to take hold in some spaces. I can see why, people’s personal situations don’t always track the wider economy, so the economy as a whole (measured by GDP) can go up massively while some people or some sectors are struggling. It may not matter to you than millions of people have more time, money, and leisure because you personally lost your job as say a factory worker. In this case GDP can seem like a false measurement because people have a hard time looking outside themselves.

But in another way, it is true that some politicians laser-focus on GDP to the expense of all else. It is a basic truism that when a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a useful metric. GDP is a *metric* of economic health, but once voters realized this they started grading their politicians on the GDP measurements they saw in the news. That in turn made GDP into a *target* for politicians to point at and say “look, I’m making things better!”

In that case, GDP can go up (because it’s being targeted) while people’s actual situation is going down. This is exactly what happened during the tail end of the Trudeau administration in Canada, Trudeau focused solely on rising GDP as his target, but GDP-per-capita went down. People’s living situations in Canada were not really improved at all despite Trudeau raising the national GDP.

Still, GDP is a good measure of what it measures: productivity. And what is productivity? It is the turning of low-value things into high value things.

The above poster blithely described it as “bullshit,” but think of this: everything we as a society need and want requires someone else to use their time, money and effort to make it for us. If there isn’t enough food for all of us, our lives are measurably worse off. Increasing the production of food requires the labor of a farmer, requires the cultivation of land, requires the creation of irrigation and of transport infrastructure and warehouses for the food and inspections to ensure the food is clean. The creation of all those things is captured in GDP.

GDP directly captures when something of value is created, whether it’s food, or irrigation to make the food, or warehouses to store the food, or even Crest Mouthwash made from raw fluoride. YOU may not think the thing created has value, maybe you don’t wash your mouth. But the beauty of capitalism is that OTHER people get to decide for THEMSELVES what they think is valuable, and if they want mouthwash, they’ll happily pay for it, and thus creating new mouthwash to sell to those people raises GDP.

This is a small post, it’s mostly meant to dunk on a single Internet commentator, and by extension dunk on an entire subculture of “GDP-is-bullshit”ists. But I want to make clear: GDP is NOT bullshit. It is a measure of goods and services created. Those goods and services have VALUE, maybe not to you, but to SOMEONE ELSE. If they didn’t have value to someone else, they wouldn’t raise GDP. And so complaining that some people’s goods and services add value, even though you don’t think they’re useful, is like complaining that other people are having fun with a game you don’t like.

The Great Disruption Part 2: A laundry list of failed predictions

I wrote earlier about The Great Disruption by Paul Gilding, a book which claimed to be an unerringly scientific prediction of the future of our climate’s future, but was in reality a pseudo-religious call to action in favor of degrowth ideology, with every counter-argument ignored without even a retort. I’ve meant to write for a while but all I have is a laundry list of grievances against the book. This is the streams of my consciousness, so let’s go.

The author understands a tiny bit of economics, and understands that technology does not destroy jobs but rather lowers costs. The powered loom didn’t destroy jobs in the clothing industry, more people work in this industry today than before it’s invention. Rather the powered loom lowered the price of clothes such that all of us can afford many more pairs of clothes than could our ancestors. Lower prices, more efficiency, more consumption.

But he considered our human drive for technology to be a “pathology” because “it doesn’t work” (in what way?). He seems to claim that our lives are not tangibly better than our predecessors, we just have “more stuff.” I strongly disagree, I live a life of much more comfort an ease than did my parents on the 20th century, and I can even point towards tangible benefits since he wrote his book in 2008. The ability to call my family no matter where either of us are has greatly eased my mind when my family are taking a long cross-country trip. I no longer worry that they may be stuck or stranded without help, or that they’ve taken a wrong turn and gotten lost. Both of those are impossible as long as smart phones exist.

Furthermore, Paul believes that we reached the limits of resource extraction in *2005*, and that the 2008 crash was proof of this. This is again laughable, US oil production has nearly tripled since 2005, China has increased its demand for coal and iron, even food production has continued to increase. There is no way in hell to defend the idea that 2005 was the point where we reached maximum resource extraction, we’ve easily breached that mark every year since 2010. In 2008 when he wrote his book, the global economy was in a recession, and his thesis may have been believable. But with 20 years of growth since then, his claim is clearly bunk.

He claims that he predicted the 2008 crash by looking at resource constraints and ecological changes. Desertification, bleaching of corals, global warming, these were all signs that humanity was reaching the limits of growth and our economy would eventually crash.

But since 2020 our economy has boomed, even if the bottom 99% haven’t felt it. So question for Paul: have those ecological changes stopped? Because if desertification, coral bleaching, and global warming all predict an economic crash, then the only way to account for our economy *not* crashing is to say that those things are no longer happening. Or perhaps Paul’s prediction was bunk and ecological changes *do not* predict economic ones.

Paul also falls into what I call the Paradox of the Evil Billionaire. On the one hand, Paul claims that we all know how billionaires don’t have a shred of patriotism in their bodies, and would gladly sell out their own countrymen to make a quick buck. On the other hand, Paul and others claim that Foreign Billionaires will buy up American farms and send all the food back to their home countries, even though they’d make much more money by continuing to sell that food in America. Note that American food prices are *much much much higher* than in places like China or India, food is worth a lot more here than it is there.

So why are these Evil Billionaires, who *only* care about making more money and *definitely* will sell out their own countrymen for a buck, suddenly being secret patriots by taking a loss in order to send American food back to their home countries instead of selling it for a profit in America?

It’s because Paul (and others) believe in conspiracies more than facts, and the conspiracy that “foreigners are out to get us” is a much more powerful one than “all rich folks are amoral bastards.”

So Paul has this fantasy that in the future, countries will be forced to enact harsh laws on who can own farmland, because there won’t be enough food to go around and people will be sending food to their homelands instead of selling it for the highest price. In reality, farm production has continued to increase and food is still affordable for most Americans. Egg prices for one have crashed in 2025, making them much more affordable than last year.

Paul brashly contends that “2008 was the year that growth stopped.” LOL. LMAO even.

Paul contends that 2008 was only the beginning of a sustained economic downturn and global emergency which would last decades. Here’s some of his predictions, and the results of the past 20 years:

  • Food demand will increase but agricultural output will decrease, causing skyrocketing food prices. Hasn’t happened
  • Fresh water, fisheries, and arable land will run out leading to sky-high prices for food and water. Nope, hasn’t happened.
  • “Sustained and rapid increases in oil prices as peak oil is breached.” LMAO, no.
  • He does claim that “there could be” a global pandemic which shuts down air travel, so he weasels his way into one correct prediction. Still, the pandemic is over and air travel is back, so it didn’t lead to any lasting effects like he claimed.
  • He also puts the global pandemic right alongside “terrorists attacks wiping out a major city,” so I think clearly he was just making shit up that sounded scary. Again no, terrorists haven’t wiped out any major cities.
  • He claims there will be a “dramatic drop in global [stock] markets and a tightening of capital supply.” Again, no.

So basically all of his predictions are bad. He’s a degrowther, after all.

He essentially predicted a mass global crisis because we’d run out of oil and coal. He wasn’t really an environmentalist either, he didn’t think renewables could ever bridge the gap. Rather he just wanted the economy to be *smaller*, and so he created a bunch of fanciful predictions that proved it would become smaller in the future. He was wrong of course, the global economy has never been larger.

Here are also some of the changes he thinks society must make, and WILL make, to stave off the catastrophe, along with my commentary:

  • He thinks the societies that will best cope with the catastrophe will be the ones that start to “ration electricity.” In reality, rationing electricity is a sign that your society is *failing*, not succeeding, at coping with the present.
  • He wants to “erect a wind turbine and solar plant in every town.” This is just stupid on top of everything else. Not every town is suitable for wind or solar power, and besides power generation is done best using *economies of scale*, where lots of power is generated all in one place and then distributed to the markets far away. His idea would be inefficient and bad, so of course it hasn’t happened.
  • He wants to “ration the use of ICE cars,” “ground 1/2 of all aircraft,” “shop less, live more.” No, no, and no. And what does he mean by “live more?” People buy things they want because they think it will improve their lives. When he says “live more” he just comes across as a boomer complaining that society is too fast-paced for his old back to handle, and that he doesn’t like how women wear so much makeup these days. Most of his complaints come across as cultural rather than economic, and these are severely *conservative* cultural complaints at that.
  • He thinks we must (and therefore WILL) stop using fossil fuels by 2024. Hasn’t happened.
  • He thinks that as of 2008 there is “no significant future for coal or oil, short of some surprising breakthrough technology.” Was fracking really all that surprising?
  • “The market hasn’t priced in that all coal and oil companies will be worthless.” LMAO, nope. I’m sure he’s moved the goal-posts by now, but these companies have continued chugging along regardless.

Paul also says “I talk to people all the time who understand this *common sense*, they know that despite so-called “experts” saying their lives are improved these past few decades, they don’t feel any better off.” He has just discovered nostalgia, and thinks he’s the only one who understands. Again, he is fundamentally a cultural conservative, things were better in the “good old days.”

Anyway these are just my thoughts on Paul’s book. It really is not worth a read as anything other than blog fodder. It is badly written, badly argued, and hasn’t stood the test of time. I’m glad I didn’t pay for it, I got it at the library instead. But they should really discard it and put something better on their shelves.

EDIT: one final aside: when I posted this post, WordPress suggested I add additional tags to increase it’s reach. They suggested “faith” and “Jesus” as appropriate tags. Why?

Amazon will not be part of the “Resistance”

I wanted to write this half a year ago, but with Trump’s tariffs back in the news, I figured I’d give it another go.

When Trump first enacted his so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs, many experts (mostly partisan experts though) predicted the apocalypse. It was bad enough that many news sources started educated their readers on the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, which anyone who watched Ferris Bueler’s Day Off will know were the tariffs enacted during the Great Depression. These tariffs have been blamed for contributing to the depth and intensity of the Great Depression, and naturally partisans wanted voters to make that connection to Trump’s Tariffs.

I myself also started watching out. I live in a major city with a major train hub, and as I commute past it I like to look out and check how many boxcars are being loaded and unloaded by trains. Earlier this year it seemed the tariffs might have actually been apocalyptic, the train yard was empty on some days. But despite partisans stoking fears of COVID-level shortages, tariffs have seemed to have a marginal effect on the US economy. Growth has remained strong in 2025, with the US well ahead of pretty much every advanced economy on earth in terms of growth rate. The EU may be a massive free trade area, and the USA may have become an increasingly protectionist autarky throughout the Trump-Biden years, but that hasn’t been enough to make the EU more competitive or the US less.

It’s likely because the tariffs are indeed marginal. Tariffs are a tax on imports, but like any other tax they can be avoided and mitigated by changing behaviors. Companies have shifted to sourcing their products from areas with lower tariffs, changing their production line to build more things in America, or in some cases are simply accepting lower profits and not passing the cost of the tariffs onto consumers because they need to maintain market share. In other cases the tariffs *are* leading to a rise in prices, but consumers still have the chance to substitute tariffed goods for other goods or just stop buying alltogether.

The tariffs have likely contributed to inflation remaining well-above target, and have likely made certain consumers much poorer without realizing it (as they purchase tariffed products and can’t find substitutes), but the tariffs have not had nearly the destructive effects that I and many others believed they would.

But the biggest problem for Trump’s detractors is highlighting the adverse effects of Trump’s tariffs. Remember that the American people seem to broadly like tariffs: Biden expanded Trump’s tariffs, Bernie surged in the Democratic Party by denouncing Clinton’s pro-corporate policies (which were usually also pro-trade policies) and Trump has completely remade the GOP into a protectionist party. America’s two parties are dominated by protectionists, and many free-trade Democrats have been furious that 2028 hopefuls have mostly denounced Trump’s tariffs as being “too high, too broad,” rather than hitting out that “tariffs are just plain bad and shouldn’t be used.”

It seems that Americans really do like tariffs, so trying to attack Trump for his tariff policy doesn’t hit as well as it “should.” This is a big problem for free-trade Democrats because to them it’s patently obvious that Trump’s tariffs have led to higher inflation and lower growth, but Americans aren’t necessarily buying it.

Enter Amazon. As the foremost distributor of direct-to-consumer goods, Amazon is acutely sensitive to trade policy. Any raise in tariffs will cause a raise in prices for imported goods, causing consumers to purchase less and that hurts Amazon’s bottom line. Amazon has every reason to lobby as strongly as possible *against* tariffs, and as a consumer-facing company that everyone knows, free-trade Democrats thought they’d found their edge.

The idea went like this: what if Amazon *shows consumers* how much higher their prices are because of tariffs? What if every time a consumer buys a 100$ imported product, Amazon shows its base cost but then hits them with a “+15$ because of tariffs” fee at the checkout? Consumers would be furious at these hidden costs, but their fury would be directed at Trump and his tariffs. The tariffs would become unpopular, Trump would become unpopular, the free-trade Democrats and Amazon would be the big winners in 2026 and 2028 when (hopefully) less protectionist Democrats would be swept into power on a wave of consumer backlash.

It all seemed so perfect, leaked reports even claimed that Amazon was openly considering this idea.

But then Amazon made an official statement that they would not under any condition display tariff prices. Their statement said that while such a move was considered, it was never approved, which isn’t unusual as companies are constantly considering many thousands of moves that are never approved. Furthermore Amazon spokesmen pointed out that the company had never shown consumers the cost of tariffs during the Biden administration, even though Biden had hiked tariffs to their highest point since Jimmy Carter.

Amazon felt the move would damage its own brand, worsen its political position, and bring basically no benefit. If Amazon was an arm of the Democratic party, then maybe it would make sense. But as a profit-maximizing entity, pissing off your customers with hidden fees *and* wading into the political arena with a nakedly partisan endorsement of the opposition (by blaming the current administration for high prices) just doesn’t make sense.

So Amazon will *not* be part of the Anti-Trump Resistance. As Michael Jordan once said, Republicans buy sneakers too, and most profit-maximizing companies find it best to *not* piss off half the country by taking overtly partisan stances. They may try to take political stances, but they will always present themselves as non-partisan to consumers, because they don’t want to lose business from angry voters. And directly blaming Trump’s Tariffs for high Amazon prices, after 4 years of never doing such for Biden’s Tariffs would indeed be an overtly partisan act, because it’s an attempt to blame Republicans for high prices and push consumers towards supporting the Democrats.

This then made Amazon a target of April’s 2-minute-hate in the eyes of free-trade democrats. These Democrats don’t see “showing the cost of tariffs” as partisan at all (because people always believe their own beliefs are just “the obvious truth,” and not a partisan stance). Rather, when Amazon *refused* to show the cost of tariffs, it was blamed for kowtowing to a “fascist” government, comparisons to 1930s German companies were ever-present, and Bezos himself was derided as a coward and a collaborator, rather than the profit-maximizing businessman that he is.

The simple fact is that obviously no multinational company is going to want to lose half its customers, so no multinational company is going to make their storefront an advertisement for the Democrats and against the Republicans. I’m sure Amazon is lobbying the administration on reducing tariffs, it was widely reported that tech giants did this exact same lobbying last time Trump was in power. But just because Amazon doesn’t like tariffs doesn’t mean they want to torch their credibility with Republican consumers. Because Republican consumers might angrily ask why Amazon is sourcing products from overseas (and showing people a tariff) rather than sourcing *American* products like Trump (and Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders) would prefer they be doing.

Anyway I’ve found a dozen ways to restate this one point: Amazon is not going to become part of the Resistance, it will not show consumers what the price of Trump’s tariffs are in part because that would be a partisan move that would invite blowback and boycotts from Republicans: “why isn’t Amazon buying American instead, and why didn’t Amazon do this stunt during the Biden administration?”

But I wanted to note one additional reason Amazon won’t be showing consumers the price of tariffs, and it’s isn’t because of what Amazon wants, it’s because of what their suppliers want.

The relationship between Amazon and its legion of medium-sized suppliers is a tricky one. On the one hand some random clothing store like Shoes&Shirts LLC (fake name) probably likes that Amazon gives them a massive amount of customers to sell to. Amazon’s global consumer base makes it easier to scale up by just having a single contract with Amazon, rather than having to negotiate multiple deals with brick-and-mortar stores in every single country.

On the other hand, Amazon’s dominance of the market gives them a lot of power over their suppliers, they can negotiate a large cut of the proceeds, demand suppliers abide by Amazons rules and regulations, and overall an agreement with Amazon can be like a pair of golden handcuffs. If you’ve seen how indie developers complain about Steam, you’ll understand how small and medium suppliers complain about Amazon.

The situation can be even worse, since Amazon competes directly with its own suppliers. Say Shirts&Shoes LLC has a new style of Comfy Sweater that is flying off the digital shelves. Amazon can see this, and see that another company makes a nearly identical sweater for a fraction of the cost. Amazon can then source their own Comfy Sweater from this other company and try to undercut Shirts&Shoes LLC on price, fulfilling the orders themselves and taking Shirts&Shoes’s business out from under them.

Amazon suppliers are therefore very very cautious with what information they give to Amazon. They do *not* want to tell Amazon the price it costs them to make something, they only want to reveal the price they’re selling it for. Giving away the price to make something makes it even easier for Amazon to undercut them.

If Shirts&Shoes’s sweater is selling for 100$, and you can source it for 60$, you still don’t know for sure if you can undercut them. Maybe Amazon lists their own sweater for 75$, but Shirts&Shoes responds by cutting the price down to 50$ because they can actually make it for even less than that. Amazon would be putting a lot of money into a failed attempt at capturing new market share, Shirts&Shoes would be furious at the attempted betrayal, AND both would now be making less money because the shirt is selling for less so both sides get less of a cut. The only winners would be the consumers.

So Amazon’s suppliers DO NOT want to give Amazon any information more than they need to. And that by the way includes the price of tariffs.

When Shirts&Shoes brings a shirt into America, customs charges them a tariff based on the declared value of the shirt. Shirts&Shoes then has to set the sale price at a level high enough to cover not only the cost of the shirt, but also the cost of the tariff. If the value of the shirt is 20$ and there’s a 100% tariff, then they can’t sell the shirt for less than 40$ without taking a lose.

But they may be selling the shirt for 100$ anyway and taking 60$ of profit. Now, the shirt’s price may have gone up because there used to be no tariff and now there’s a 100% tariff. So the free-trade Democrats would love if the shirt was listed on Amazon for a price of 80$, but had an extra 20$ “tariff tax” at the checkout that would be directly blamed on Donald Trump.

But Shirts&Shoes doesn’t want to reveal that the base cost of their shirt is 20$ with a 20$ tariff on top. Because at that point if Amazon can source the same shirt for 35$, then they can undercut Shirts&Shoes and steal their business, and both sides know it. Instead, Shirts&Shoes would like the costs going into the shirt to be as obfuscated as possible.

They’d probably like their customers to think that it costs them 90$ to make a shirt and they’re selling it for 100$, because that way they don’t seem to be making “too” much profit. If customers knew Shirts&Shoes had such a high mark-up, customers might think they were getting ripped off, and would make nasty posts on the internet to complain about Shirts&Shoes’s prices. This could harm Shirts&Shoes’s brand.

And they’d probably like Amazon to think that it costs them 5$ to make a shirt and they’re selling it for 100$. Because they don’t want Amazon to attempt to undercut them and either steal their business or initiate a price war which harms their profit margins.

So ambiguity is entirely in Shirts&Shoes’s interests, and so they don’t want to reveal any tariff information to Amazon. That in turn means that even if Amazon wanted to, it wouldn’t be able to reveal tariff information on any third party products, only on products it sources itself. That could backfire if Amazon even decided to reveal tariff prices, as *only Amazon’s own goods would show the tariff as a hidden cost*. Buy a good sourced by Shirts&Shoes? What You See Is What You Get. Buy a good sourced by Amazon? You have no idea WHAT the real price will be.

To summarize, Amazon (and other profit-seeking companies) will NOT be part of the resistance, as they do not want to damage their brand in the eyes of partisans. Likewise, it’s not even a simple thing for Amazon to JOIN the resistance and reveal to customers the true price of tariffs. They’d be pissing off their own customers by making customers feel like the price is a bait-and-switch, they’d be demanding information from their suppliers that the suppliers don’t want to reveal, and if the suppliers DON’T reveal that information, then only Amazon-sourced products would show a tariff anyway, meaning Amazon gets all of the blowback for “high prices” while their suppliers can claim “Same Low Prices As Ever,” even if prices everywhere are actually rising.

Partisans think everyone should join their fight, and that the only reason not to is base cowardice. They’re usually wrong.

What exactly is Ezra Klein’s “Abundance Agenda?”

Answer: it’s neoliberalism. But if that answer fills you with disgust, fear, or just confusion, please read on as I promise the explanation will be worth it.

In the wake of the 2024 election, Ezra Klein and buddies published a book called “Abundance,” and in talks and interviews they have been trying to sell it as a way forward for the defeated Democrats. The key question of the book is this: if liberal policies are so great, why do blue states have the most homelessness? Why do they have the highest overruns on their infrastructure projects? Why do they have the most difficulty building renewable energy?

These are difficult questions because they cut at the heart of the liberal/progressive promise for America. There was a half-century long political touchstone (within the American media sphere) that the Democrats were who you voted for if you cared about social issues, but you voted Republican if you cared about economics. Never mind that this misses the many socially conservative/economically re-distributive voters who saw things the opposite way, this “vote Republican for the economy” belief was one that Democrats wanted to push back on.

For my entire adult life, Democrats have been making the argument that no, “Republicans are actually bad for the economy, vote Democrat if you care about economics.” In the wake of the Financial Crisis, this message resonated, but after 4 years of inflation it seems voters no longer bought it.

Worse still, Ezra Klein’s “Abundance Agenda” argues that *you can’t blame voters for coming to this conclusion*. Blue states may be the *richest states*, but it is the Red states that are *growing*. They are building housing, they are building infrastructure, and in the next census it is predicted that Blue States (California and New York especially) will lose electoral votes to Red states (such as Florida and Texas). People are literally voting with their feet, moving from Blue states to Red states when every part of the liberal mindshare says that’s insane, and that all migration should be happening in the *other direction*. The only explanation is that people believe they’ll have higher quality of life in these Red states than what they have in the Blue states, how can that be?

Ezra Klein’s answer is that Democrats haven’t lived up to their economic promise, and they need to embrace Abundance if they are going to do so.

Much of his suggestions are things I myself have blogged about, land use should be deregulated, housing and energy should be made easier to build, and the free market should at times be deferred to to bring down prices for consumers. Government bureaucrats can’t run markets.

In this sense, Ezra Klein is making a (small) break with Bidenism. Tariffs on solar panels make it more expensive to build clean energy, tariffs on lumber make it more expensive to build houses.

When it’s more expensive to build things, then the supply is lower. When the supply is lower, the price is higher. If we want consumers to enjoy low prices, we should encourage higher supply by making it less expensive to build, this is the core of the Abundance Agenda. “Build what?” you ask? Everything. Housing needs houses to be built, energy needs power plants to be built, jobs need companies and factories to be built, and the Abundance Agenda encourages policies that make it cheaper to build all those things.

In essence, the Abundance Agenda is deregulation.

See, Biden is actually a pre-Carter Democrat, recall that he was elected to the Senate in 1972. The New Deal consensus at that time included a lot of skepticism of markets, and a certain degree of autarky in which the government should step in to ensure the economy is making the things it “needs” to make. So if car companies are struggling, we need to give them subsidies or protect them with tariffs, because cars are so important. Same with solar panels, microchips, and steel.

Biden’s economic record is actually reminding me a lot of Jean Jacque Servan-Schreiber, who you may remember from previous posts. Like JJSS, Biden seemed to be trying to use government power to “direct” the economy, and my criticisms of JJSS apply just as well here: governments can’t predict the future and so don’t actually know what the best investments are. Companies can’t predict either, but at least companies have price signals and the profit motive directing them towards the best bets, governments are immune from both by their sovereign nature.

JJSS wanted the Europe of the 1960s to invest heavily in supersonic planes, but we now know that those bets were quite wasteful as the fruits of their labor (Concorde) were outcompeted by the private sector (Boeing) who had already abandoned supersonic travel entirely. Will Biden’s chip foundries built in Arizona stand the test of time? Or will they be like Concorde, an unprofitable venture held up solely by the demands of national prestige, until such time as prestige becomes to expensive to maintain?

While Ezra still sees a need for government “leadership” (which I don’t, but more on that later), he is more comfortable in the post-Carter consensus, stating that governments should cut back the regulations which prevent companies from giving us cheap goods and services. Housing is expensive because governments don’t let us build houses. Energy and infrastructure are expensive because solar farms and railroads get blocked by environmental review. Even healthcare and education are burdened by over-regulation which prevents competition and protects the current megacorporations that dominate the market.

So Ezra Klein could be most accurately described as a “left-capitalist.” He is solidly on the left with regards to all social and moral issues, but does not have the skepticism of profit and corporations that Bernie and Biden do. In other words, he’s a neoliberal.

Now that is a *very* loaded term, because my time around the Internet has shown me that many people define neoliberalism as “anything I don’t like.” But philosophically neoliberalism *was* a thing, and in many ways did represent a real ideology. It was a break with the New Deal consensus on governments directing the economy, while still accepting a government role in social welfare and poverty reduction. Carter and Clinton both governed this way, and so are usually considered “neoliberals” by people who don’t consider it a slur.

Ezra Klein is therefore arguing that this “neoliberalism” should be part of the way forward for Democrats and America at large. California and New York should take more cues from Texas and Florida, at least economically. But to do so means touching a lot of third rails within the liberal coalition:

  • To deregulate housing, you need to remove the ability of local residents to block new housing. This can easily be reframed as “removing local control” and “overturning democracy” if the neighborhood votes against a new house and you let it be built anyway. This deference to localism is hard to overcome politically when it’s framed in terms of gentrification and “Residents vs Corporate Developers”
  • To deregulate energy and infrastructure, you need to end a lot of environmental regulations. You need to get acceptance from the coalition that sometimes we’ll have to cut down a meadow to build a solar farm, or pave over a creek to build a railroad. And if there’s a species of animal or plant that *only lives* in that meadow or creek, then you have to get buy-in that biodiversity is less important that fighting climate change.
  • Energy and infrastructure also touch on “local control” and activist veto. Ezra Klein wants to make it easier for companies to get environmental lawsuits dismissed, and would likely applaud the recent supreme court decision on NEPA. But in any fight between “corporations” and “climate activists,” the coalition is inclined to side with the activists, and that will be hard to overcome
  • To deregulate schools and childcare, you need to remove laws that were put there in the name of “safety.” Many states have very low caps on child-to-adult ratio in daycares, as low as 1:3, as well regulations that the workers must have a degree in childcare and training in a wide variety of emergency medical scenarios. When a certain democrat suggested raising the child-to-adult ratio to 1:4 in one city, I saw comments that “this change will kill babies,” which is a thought-terminating incitement intended to protect regulations by force of emotion, rather than reason. If 1:4 will kill babies, then isn’t 1:3 already killing babies, since we could instead be having a 1:2 ratio? Or 1:1? At some point you have to weigh up the costs and benefits, even in cases of life and death.
  • And to deregulate any of these things, you need to overcome the cries that “every regulation is written in blood,” ie no deregulation should ever happen. This is yet another thought-terminating cliche but it’s one that has a lot of power on the left-side of the political spectrum.

So will Abundance succeed? Will Ezra Klein and the new “Abundance Caucus” make New York and California as affordable as Texas and Florida? Will they reverse the migration trends and made New York lose so many of its electoral votes? I don’t know, but I have more to say on this later. Now that I’ve defined what abundance is, I’d like my next post to discuss what it isn’t. Stay tuned…

Protectionism wears the skin of health and safety

Regulations wrapped in red tape

Trump is an unusual figure among the world’s politicians. It is not that he is a nativist and a protectionist, but that he is open and direct about his nativist and protectionist beliefs. Trump says that foreign companies are harming American companies by undercutting on price, and that foreigners are stealing American jobs by working in America.

There are many reasons to attack these beliefs and to tell Trump he’s wrong. Here are some reasons give on the left or the right, maybe you agree with one of them:

  • If foreign companies sell for cheaper, than that means blocking foreign goods raises prices. And raising prices (aka inflation) directly harms all American consumers way worse than foreign goods harm a single American company
  • “Oh your company can’t compete? Sounds like a skill issue. Your company deserves to go bankrupt, free market in action.”
  • Foreigners do jobs Americans don’t want to do
  • It’s unethical to prevent foreigners from moving to America to look for a better life
  • “Oh you can’t compete against foreign workers? Sounds like a skill issue. You deserve to go bankrupt, free market in action.”
  • Trade barriers will wreck the economy by driving up prices, and any claims of fairness are necessarily secondary to this single overriding truth: trade barriers are bad for the economy

Politicians in and out of America have made each of these arguments in turn as they argue against Trumps new tariffs. But the single-minded opposition to tariffs hides something deeper: almost every politician globally throws up trade barriers just like Trump, but they have different excuses.

  • “Those goods contain chemicals that harm our health”
  • “Those goods contain chemicals that harm our environment”
  • “For national security or data privacy, we cannot allow foreigners to hold our market or buy our data”
  • And the old reliable: “those goods and services don’t comply with our regulations.”

This last one is pernicious because of how vapid and all-encompassing it is. It only works because people have a knee-jerk reaction against deregulation, but as I have pointed out, there’s a lot of anti-consumer regulation out there raising our prices and harming our economies. Regulation doesn’t actually mean “good,” but enough people believe it does that politicians can hide all their protectionist bullshit behind an aegis of “regulations.”

I say all this because I’m bashing the EU again today. A former EU minister of parliament put out a post which demonstrates a lot of this BS EU protectionism. I had already known that the EU uses “regulation” to protect its market from foreign goods, what is commonly termed “protectionism.” What I did not know is how much EU countries use this to protect their national markets from the single market itself.

The whole idea of the single market is free trade and free movement. If a company is allowed to sell goods in one country, it should be allowed to sell goods in all of them. If a person is allowed to work in one country, they should be allowed to work in all of them. This reduces barriers, brings countries closer together, and is much more efficient economically than a world of barriers and tariffs. It should bring everyone prosperity.

But the countries of the single market still want to “protect” their national markets and their national workers, just like Trump does. But unlike Trump, EU countries are legally forbidden from erecting tariffs. So they use health, safety, and regulation instead to do their dirty work. Here’s some examples from the article:

  • Denmark claiming that adding vitamins and nutrients to breakfast cereal “could be toxic,” with absolutely no justification whatsoever. The cereals are consumed EU-wide, and one would think the burden of proof would be on the accuser in that case. But no, a baseless “could be toxic” claim is enough to ban a product in Denmark unless the company making it is willing to go through a long court battle against a national government.
  • Spain and Italy trying to force foreign chocolate (consumed in every EU state, legally chocolate by EU law) to be explicitly marketed as “not true chocolate” even though every law says its chocolate.
  • France forcing Dutch biodiesel to comply with expensive testing that is waived for French biodiesel.
  • Germany forcing foreign professionals to undergo expensive “equivalence checks” before allowing them to work in the country. This is just more BS occupational licensing by the way, a horse-groomer shouldn’t need a license to begin with let alone an “equivalence check” to make sure their Italian license is valid in Germany.
  • Adding new national regulation that must be complied with *on top* of any EU regulation. This is the most pernicious, because most EU regulations explicitly mention that they are there to “harmonize” the market, make goods acceptable in every country. But EU regulations in the past decade have not decrease trade barriers, because countries have learned to add a new national regulation on top of every EU one, forcing foreign companies to increase their compliance cost if they want to break into a national market.

For years and years, Europe was indeed a continent of decreasing trade barriers. While they continued to be strongly protectionist against the outside world (erecting anti-GMO laws primarily as protectionism for EU farms), they were at least reducing barriers within the block. But Europe is not immune to the anti-globalization sentiment that has swept across Britain and America since 2016. It’s just that much like Biden, European politicians are caught between maintaining their appearance as internationalists while still wanting to be protectionists and nativists.

So rather than erect tariffs, the EU countries have recently relied on “soft” barriers, barriers which don’t *technically* forbid entry of foreign goods, but which do place onerous costs on anyone who wants to enter the market. And a supposed internationalist has to justify their protectionism somehow, they don’t have Trump’s luxury of just honestly stating their beliefs. So they rely on their old faithful excuses: health and safety.

Biden claimed that foreign goods were a national security issue. China was the security threat that we were supposedly countering, but we countered China in part by banning Vietnamese solar panels, Mexican cars, and Canadian lumber.

And for the EU countries health, environmentalism, and data privacy are paramount. They’re part of what separates Europe from America after all. So who cares that added calcium isn’t unhealthy, or that Dutch companies are making biodiesel the same way French companies do, if it’s foreign we can claim it’s unhealthy and unsafe by default. And then we ban it until they comply with our expensive tests, or until they start making the product in our country, or until they stop being foreign and sell themselves to locals.

This is exactly what Biden and Trump wanted: American goods instead of foreign goods. But the EU countries use regulation to achieve this goal since they can’t tariff the single market.

And this is one of the main reasons I push back against regulation. I’ve said over and over, regulation is not intrinsically good or bad. Good regulation is good, bad regulation is bad. But I’ve seen over and over how politicians hide their protectionism behind a coat of regulation. And I’ve seen how most people have an intrinsic distrust of deregulation, meaning whenever I point this protectionism out I’m accused of wanting to destroy health and safety.

“Foreign cereal is unhealthy,” “foreign biodiesel is bad for the environment,” “foreign Tech companies will steal our data,” it’s very easy to just claim this without evidence and get people on board with you. And it’s *surprisingly* easy to do when “foreign” just means another country in the EU, wasn’t Europe supposed to have solidarity?

And it’s impossible to prove a negative, so proving that the cereal is no less unhealthy, the biodiesel is no different, the foreign Tech has the same policies as the native Tech, this is a losing proposition and expensive to boot. So protectionism goes on unabated, and then people wonder why the EU is still falling behind economically. Well Mario Draghi told you why, it’s because even before Trump the EU was putting tariffs on itself.

I write this in part out of frustration and in part as an attempt at education. People are negatively polarized against Trump, and so even people who never heard or cared about tariffs are deciding that tariffs are bad and we shouldn’t do them. Some neoliberal Democrats are hoping that this lets them finally remake the coalition, and kick out the protectionists like Biden and Sanders in favor of rebuilding the Clinton-Bush-Obama consensus of free trade.

But even if this happens, I’ve seen way too much evidence that this will not be a radical remaking of ideology. Protectionism will, as it has in the EU, simply become the purvey of health and safety. Even the neoliberals of the party have trouble arguing against health and safety, especially when Democrats as a whole are so negatively polarized against deregulation.

So that’s what I really wanted to say: regulations are not always good. They are not always bad, but they are not always good. Don’t assume that just because the government banned something, it was right to do so. Be open to the possibility that they’re protecting their markets just like Trump is.

Draghi wants to unify Europe’s capital markets 

Note that this one’s more rambly than I wish, but I have a lot of thoughts and am not good at editing.  Suggestions for how to cut this down are appreciated if you want to leave a comment or an email. 

You might as well be lighting your money on fire…

When talking about the American vs European economies, the discussion always turns towards Tech.  “Europe missed the Tech boom” is a true, but surface level description of Europe’s stagnation in high tech industries.  Cloud computing, social media, AI, all the buzzwords of the last 20 years have been American, and some wonder why Europe doesn’t have trillion-dollar companies like Apple and Microsoft.  I’ve already pushed back on the “cultural” explanations for this, but I want to look deeper at some of the proposed solutions for helping Europe’s economy catch up. 

If you ask why Europe has a smaller Tech industry, there’s a few common answers given.  One is that Europe is fragmented linguistically, most people don’t speak each other’s language, while America has 300 million people all speaking one language.  But I’ve never been convinced by the argument that tech companies stop at the border.   

You can maybe make the argument that social media spreads fastest among people who speak the same language, but I’ve never seen this argument be well-quantified.  Facebook is used by half the earth’s population, they don’t all speak English, so why did it spread so easily even after maxing out in the English-speaking world?  And TikTok has been a viral hit among westerners, even though it started in China.  The language argument is often presented as obvious but without any evidence to support it, and I don’t think it’s reasonable until I see some evidence. 

Furthermore, social media is just a tiny piece of the Tech industry.  Apple, Microsoft, Spotify, Samsung, these aren’t social media companies.  So what explains why half of them are American, and the non-American ones aren’t even in the top 10? 

Another argument is that Europe is fragmented economically.  Still, I don’t really buy this.  It’s true that Europe is not wholly unified, different countries have different regulations.  But the EU is a common market of goods and services, overwhelmingly products sold in one country can likewise be sold in another.  If there was a European version of Apple or Samsung, their smartphones would almost certainly be buyable in any EU country.  Indeed, the market fragmentation never stopped Nokia from its 1-time dominance of cell phones, so why did this fragmentation prevent the emergence of a European smartphone company, if it never stopped the top European cell phone company? 

The final common answer is the one I want to discuss today: European investment is low because there is no unified capital market.  German investors invest in German companies, French investors in French companies, and this drastically limits how much capital is available for startups.  While Europe is trying to have 27 different capital markets, American capital is clustered in just 1 (Silicon Valley) or 2 (if you count Boston, New York, or one of the other “also rans”). 

I buy this argument more, but I want to start with some clarity on what it *really means* for a capital market to be “unified.” 

We’d say a market is unified when investors from one area are equally capable of investing in any other area.  Why might investors not invest across the border?  Tax and regulation mostly.   

Taxes don’t have to be *higher* to deter investment, *different* is more than enough.  Think of capital gains tax when an investor sells something they’ve invested in.  Some places allow a lower tax when you hold the investment longer (long-term capital gains), while others don’t make a distinction.  This may lead to a lower tax burden overall, but more tax-season headache in proving how long each investment was held, and proving it was held in the correct jurisdiction which allows this long-term capital gains distinction.  Sometimes it’s better to just invest everything in one place and hire less accountants. 

Different regulations would also be self-explanatory, there’s more bureaucratic overhead in understanding and applying different regulations for each different investment.  But here we come to the difficult part, and why I think Draghi’s drive for unification will face stiff headwinds.  Regulations have a moral component for lack of a better word.  When discussing regulations online, it’s not uncommon to see “regulations are written in blood” as an emotive argument put forth against deregulation.  Any attempt to pair back anything in the way of “red tape” faces a mountain of pushback from voters, and unifying the regulations will require *some* deregulation.   

*Some* country’s regulations will have to be cut, even if they’re simply replaced with those of another countries.  Even if regulations are “harmonized” by trying to bring them closer together, that still means some things get cut and some things get added.  And this will necessarily inflame the passions of the voters and commentators who say that “regulations are written in blood.”  Because while regulation of the capital markets might not have to do with healthcare and worker’s rights directly, they do have much to do with bankruptcy and ownership, which can be even more emotive. 

Trump is often jeered for his numerous corporate bankruptcies.  He in turn calls bankruptcy a smart business move when needed.  It’s true that an investor can expect 9 investments to go bust for every 1 that succeeds.  And it’s true that American bankruptcy laws are quite lenient.  And it’s also true that a smart investor be foolish to not take advantage of any edge the law can give them, lenient bankruptcy is one such edge. 

But bankruptcy stirs passions because someone’s left holding the bag.  If Europe is going to unify its capital markets, it’s going to inflame those passions.  When the banks went bankrupt in 2008, it stirred immense passion because of who had to pay and who was left holding the bag.  Changing these laws raises the specter of the financial crisis, and any recent bankruptcies will get put under a microscope to point out how things would be different in a unified EU capital market.   

To put some meat on these bones, let’s say a car company is going bankrupt in Bulgaria.  We’ll call it “Bulgarian Cars,” its owner and CEO is Mr Car, its workers belong to the “United Car Workers Union,” UCWU.  It has purchasing agreements for steel with “Steely Corp” and its sole creditor is “Big Banking,” who is unfortunately unaware that Mr Car is about to go bankrupt. 

Under the current Bulgarian system, Big Banking can (if they desire) simply take possession of all the “Bulgarian Cars” assets, and sell them in a fire sale to get back the money they are owed.  This means the factory, the showroom, and anything else could be closed down in an instant.  Big Banking gets back their money, Mr Car is broke, UCWU are out of their jobs, and Steely Corp lost its biggest customer. 

But how would this situation be effected by Draghi’s directive to unify EU capital markets?  How would the bankruptcy be altered?  Who would win, and who would lose? 

Draghi has already signaled that unified EU bankruptcy must allow for “debtor in possession,” meaning Mr Car can keep control of his company while working out a repayment plan with Big Banking.  This system allows Mr Car (or any investor) to try to rescue their company, even in bankruptcy. It’s part of what made Trump’s bankruptcies so painless. 

In France, a debtor is immediately granted relief from creditors upon filing restructuring plans.  In Germany, the debtor may *request relief*, but it isn’t automatic.  But if the capital markets are to be unified, Bulgaria must follow the direction of France and Germany and give Mr Car a reprieve from his creditors.

But should Mr Car even be *granted* relief?  He drove the company into the ground in the first place!  Why does he get to stay in charge, paying himself an obscene salary all the while?  Draghi’s unified capital markets would allow a lot more “Trump-like” bankruptcies ripe for this kind of outrage-bait, with a villainous CEO stiffing creditors, unions, and business partners while still bringing home fat checks. 

And what happens to UCWU?  They just finished negotiating a new contract with Bulgarian Cars. The contract included conditions and a long notice period before a new contract can be renegotiated.  But most EU countries allow the suspension of a union contract to help the company exit bankruptcy.  So Draghi’s unified capital market raises the possibility of workers losing out so that bankers and executives can keep the company going.  Workers’ pain for bosses’ gain. 

And through all this, what about Steely Corp, who just lost its biggest customer?  Bankruptcies are always politically fraught as they can cause a domino effect into other industries.  This is why some nations focus so much on business continuity, even if it comes at the expense of creditors and workers.  Steely Corp will want to lobby the government that UCWU and Big Banking can go to hell, they want to ensure that Bulgarian Cars returns to solvency no matter what.  Otherwise Steely Corp itself may go under, and the national news will blame the Government for letting not one, but *two* major employers go bankrupt.   

How much will Draghi’s unified capital market allow Governments to “save” companies this way?  Under certain restructuring scenarios, the Government will essentially be picking winners and losers in the market.  Demand Big Banking take a debt restructuring, demand UCWU accept a new contract, and you’re making banks and workers lose so that car and steel companies can win.  This doesn’t always fly with EU rules around fairness, and certainly won’t fly with some sections of the commentariat. 

This post was a lot less focused than usual, but it’s been in my mind for weeks.  “Unify the EU’s capital markets” sounds so obvious, why haven’t they done it?  They haven’t done it because it involves politically fraught trade-offs about ownership and hierarchy.  “Who wins and loses in a bankruptcy case” is just the top of the mountain.  Questions of equity investment, investor’s rights, corporate governance, union rights, these are also fraught questions that will have to be answered in a unified capital market.  Whatever answer is chosen will inevitably piss *someone* off, which is why countries are so slow to change these laws.  But until countries are willing to make big changes, the EU capital markets will never be unified. 

Carter and Thatcher: Champions of deregulation

When people talk about the British economy, one complaint floats to the top of the internet discourse: the Financial Sector. According to the Twitterati, the UK spent too much money “building up” a sector of the economy that has done nothing but push up inequality, force everyone into London, and doesn’t even do anything useful.

You’ll hear it said that while finances pay most of the taxes and provide most of the GDP of the UK, this was due to a stupid choice the Government made not a fact of nature. Britain should have been more like Germany, investing in industry so they could have more middle class jobs spread around the whole country. Instead they invested in Finance and got one single city filled with rich people and their servants while the entire rest of the country goes to waste.

This complaint is wrong in many ways, but the most direct falsehood is that successive Governments *did not* “invest in” or “build up” the Financial services industry, services succeeded so rapidly because the Government *kept out*. For a long time, British financial services were heavily regulated and weren’t much larger than than what was available on the continent. But then the Government stepped away from the sector, dropped its regulations, and the sector thrived. The Government didn’t put money and time *into* finances, instead the Government was taken *out* of finances.

Maybe the Government should have gotten out of more industries?

But I’m getting ahead of myself, the changes to Britain’s financial sector all happened in a “Big Bang,” named such because instead of piecemeal deregulation over many years, there was massive, sweeping deregulation all at once. The sudden drop of onerous requirements made the sector highly competitive, and drove massive investment into London/the UK at the expense of the rest of Europe.

But most people look askance at “deregulation.” They think there must be some “catch” to this story. What regulation was dropped, and how did this secretly allow Bankers to suck blood from the unions and the working class? Well here are a few regulations that were dropped:

Broker price fixing: before the big bang, if you wanted to buy a stock from a broker they were required to charge you a minimum price for the service of selling you the stock. This price was set by the Government, and it was illegal to offer lower prices. This is bad for consumers and bad for business, I mean should the Government set a *minimum price* for food? For rent? Hell no. So why a minimum price for stocks?

Ending the price fixing meant suddenly bankers had to compete on price. The price to trade a stock went lower and lower, and this had the effect of opening up the stock market to the common people as well. Suddenly there wasn’t some onerous price on top of any stock you wanted to buy, you could pay for just the stock plus a paltry service fee of a few pence. And in time, even this few pence fee went away, as brokers offered fee-less trading in an attempt to compete on volume.

Price ceilings are terrible, but leftist will still argue they are at least good for the consumer. Price *floors* are exactly as terrible, and I hope even leftist realize they aren’t good for the consumer.

Electronic trading: before the big bang, it was mandated that to buy or sell a stock, two people had to meet in person and agree to the sale. You put in your order to a broker, they wired the order to someone else, and eventually your order would make its way to two people standing on a crowded floor screaming at each other to haggle over the price of your stock. They weren’t screaming in anger, but just to be heard over everyone else on the floor, who was also screaming.

The big bang introduced electronic screens with prices and volumes, and allowed orders to be made totally electronically. This helped end the monopoly of overpaid men screaming at each other. It made ordering easier, allowed it to be done from anywhere, and by cutting out the middlemen it helped bring down the price for buying and selling stock. Once again, this helped democratize the stock market, few workers today would be able to invest for their retirement on the stock market if prices to buy and sell were still as high as the 70s.

Foreign ownership: the big bang allowed foreign companies and individuals to act as brokers. Much like electronic trading, this broke the monopoly on overpaid men screaming at each other, and lowered prices; are you seeing a pattern here? Anyway foreign banks and brokers could now bring outside investment and outside technology to the British stock market, where before they’d been banned.

The ban on foreign brokers had been done solely to “protect” the profits of British banks and British brokers. But like tariffs, it did not help the British economy nor protect British wages. It was just another facet of a Government sanctioned oligarchy, which allowed only certain, connected individuals to profit from Britain’s stock market. Foreign investment created competition, and it also created a flood of incoming money, which boosted demand for workers and drove up British wages. These new brokers needed buildings, needed computers, needed employees etc. The flood of incoming money was a great boon for workers and builders in every sector of the British economy.

These are just a few of the deregulations brought on by Thatcher’s big bang, but they all had the same theme. They broke the monopoly of the overpaid bankers and brokers, and brought in competition that brought down prices and democratized the stock market. The financial industry grew like never before, eclipsing every other sector of the British economy. And it did so not through Government support, but because the Government *kept out*.

But let us turn now to Jimmy Carter.

Deregulation is too often seen as a boogieman of the right wing. The conservative party (whichever party it is in your country), wants to deregulate because they secretly want to destroy the environment and make workers their slaves. It is a too-common dogma on the left that any regulation is necessary and sacrosanct for the good of the economy, and that deregulation doesn’t even help GDP but merely lets well-connected CEOs impose a monopoly that makes everyone poorer.

So I thought I’d push against that view with a man no one could accuse of being a right-wing conservative: Jimmy Carter. Jimmy came to the presidency at a time of great difficulty. Inflation, oil crisis, stagflation even, the American economy was nuts in the 70s. There was even fear that the USSR would overtake America. Jimmy would fix that.

One of Carter’s signature policies was deregulating the airline industry. Once again, a modern leftist might see this as a betrayal: what did Carter’s deregulation do to break the unions, harm the workers, and price-gouge the people, and how much did the airlines pay him to do this? But nothing could be further from the truth. Prior to Carter’s deregulation, the airline industry worked like a Gilded Age trust, with strict rules that protected the big players at the expense of workers, people, and anyone trying to get a foot in the door.

First, to make a new airline route, companies had to submit their request to a centralized body. This body would then look to see if the new route created too much competition with any other airline’s route, and if it did, the route was forbidden. Imagine if Walmart could forbid anyone from opening a store within 5 miles of their own, that was basically what this law did.

The airline submitting the new route had to basically get a hospital-style “certificate of need” proving that there weren’t enough flights for the amount of passengers who *wanted* to travel. This was of course very difficult to prove, and the airlines already serving that route could try to maintain their monopoly by promising to increase flights, so usually the monopoly was protected.

In addition, a centralized agency set a price floor on airline tickets. Like we discussed earlier: price floors are bad. They only serve to enrich the big players by making it impossible for new companies with better tech to come in and compete on price.

In fact, even *starting a new airline company* was all but impossible, as any new company had to get permission to run airlines. Imagine if Walmart could forbid the creation of Costco solely on the basis of “we were here first.”

Airlines in America had a ton of overregulation that only served to protect the big players at the expense of everyone else. No one benefited from this, not the workers, not the fliers, not the American economy, no one except the big boys who lobbied hard to prevent deregulation from passing.

In the end, deregulation democratized flight in America the way same way it democratized the stock market in Britain. Adjusted for inflation, the average New York to LA flight was 1,200$ in 1970, today you can fly that route for under 300$. There is no question in my mind that the American people are better off without being price-gouged by airline lobbyist. And Carter made all that possible.

So my final thought is this: deregulation is a dirty word, but it shouldn’t be. Regulations are not necessarily good. They are not necessarily bad either, but don’t assume they are always good. Deregulation is likewise value neutral. It is good to remove bad regulations, it is bad to remove good regulations.

Britain has a lot of bad regulations holding it back, that’s why I suggested deregulation to Keir Starmer. Starmer has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change Britain for the better. He’s got a big majority, there is wide agreement that his predecessors were bad for the economy, and he’s hemmed in by debt and deficits preventing any big spending. This is the perfect time for deregulation.

So I say cut the red tape, kick out the cartels, and trample all over the lobbyists who want to protect their corporate fiefdoms. If Britain is going to build, it needs change, the kind of change that Jimmy Carter understood. And even if Thatcher deregulated, that doesn’t mean deregulation is always bad. Would you like to pay 10 pounds every time you wanted to purchase a stock? Would you like to pay 4 times as much to fly to another city? Starmer should cut costs for the working folk, and deregulation can make that happen.

“No more austerity! The Government needs to invest!”

“Government” is capitalized here because we’re talking about the UK today. I meant to write about it earlier, but Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have been announcing that benefits cuts will hit the UK this year. On top of last year’s tax hikes, this has raised the specter of Austerity, and fears of another Lost Decade in the UK, only this time with Labour at the helm.

Critics of the cuts abound, bringing complains and counsel:

“What happened to the tax rises from last year?!?”

“Austerity failed already! We can’t keep cutting!”

“Tax the rich! Don’t cut off the poor!”

And finally: “We should invest, not cut!”

Let me address these one by one. First, as much as the left-of-center despises the Laffer Curve, it is still an accurate reflection of reality. Raising taxes increases prices and reduces demand. This nearly always leads to a tax rise bringing in less money than the government predicts. They may claim to be modelling the demand reduction, but governments that raise taxes are heavily incentivized to make broad claims about bringing in lots of money to balance the books. Accurate modeling plays second fiddle.

And this has been the case in the UK, the 40 billion pound tax rise announced last year isn’t expected to bring in quite that much. For instance, a tax on private school education was expected to raise money while affecting a minimal number of pupils. But the government underestimated how many families would be unable to afford the tax, pushing those kids back into the public schools, where they aren’t paying the tax and the government will have to pay for their education.

So the government’s tax rise didn’t bring in near enough, and they even raised spending on top of it. The UK now faces a yawning deficit, nearly 5% of GDP. With Debt to GDP already over 100%, the government is finding borrowing unaffordable. The cost of financing all that debt is soaring, it’s 25% higher than it was a year ago at more than 100 billion pounds a year. Remember, that 100 billion pounds is *just the cost of the interest payments*, assuming no money is spent actually paying down the debt. Labour is then adding that 5% deficit on top of that, which will need even more borrowing.

So borrowing is going to cost way more than Labour expected. If they don’t want to enter a debt spiral, they need to manage that deficit.

“But Austerity failed already!” When did the UK ever implement austerity? It was the word of the decade under the coalition government, but despite the tough talk and tax rises, total spending increased every single year of the coalition, and never went down. And this wasn’t “cuts in real terms either,” *real spending* ie inflation adjusted spending, never went down during the Coalition government. It grew more slowly than under Blair/Brown, but it never went down. Boris Johnson has the (dis)honor of overseeing the only year on year reduction in real Government expenses, thanks to the massive pandemic spending that then petered out.

The UK hasn’t done austerity, and it isn’t doing austerity now. The announced cuts aren’t actual reductions in spending, they are really just slowing the rate of spending *increase*. Labour promised massive spending increases last year, and a few of those are being paired back into a smaller increase. This is still an increase in real spending, just less of one than what was promised. This isn’t austerity.

And what of taxing the rich? They’re already pay all the tax. The top 10% of UK earners pay 60% of all taxes, the top 1% pay half of that (ie 30% of the total). The bottom 50% of earners pay 17% of tax. About a third of working age Britons pay no tax at all.

And that is significantly more progressive than on the Continent, the German 10% pay a little over half of their country’s taxes, the German 1% pay a little under a quarter. By and large, the UK taxes the rich more and taxes the poor less than in the rest of Europe.

Of course, the real definition of “rich” is “1 standard deviation above my personal income.” Everyone agrees that someone *else* must pay more, but will the British economy really be improved by chasing off its last remaining high earners to America? Europeans have boasted that Trump will set off a “brain drain” of wealthy Americans, but the difference in after-tax earnings means historically that brain drain has only happened in the America-ward direction. Further tax hikes will only enforce that paradigm.

Finally, shouldn’t the Government *invest* rather than *cut*? The private sector does it all the time! They take out eye-watering amounts of debt and yet somehow come out on top, the public sector should too!

But the Government doesn’t really invest. It spends money, and it uses the language of the private sector to claim that the money is spent well. But the Government doesn’t have the profit incentive that the private sector does, it’s overwhelming incentive is for optics and votes. So as Biden showed us, Government “investment” never really generates a return.

Labour is right to cut spending. They’ve already hiked taxes, and they need to get borrowing costs under control somehow. Besides, Government spending as a proportion of GDP is already nearly 50% in the UK, about 17,000 pounds per person. Just over 10% of the population (people making more than 50,000 pounds) are putting in more money than they’re getting out. The Government already spends a lot of money, and not well. More money in the fire won’t necessarily help.

But like Nigeria’s president Tinubu, Keir Starmer has talked a big game on growth without having the stomach to follow through with it. So again, here’s my unsolicited policy advice:

Keir Starmer should liberalize (liberalise?) the UK’s labor (labour?) laws. UK companies are significantly constrained in their abilities to fire, and this generates a reluctance to hire. The UK has stiff requirements on minimum notice before firing, minimum compensation when you get fired, and if you work there for 2 years a company needs to jump through significant regulatory hoops to be allowed to fire you. These laws should be liberalized to make it easier to fire, and therefore incentive companies to hire.

I know this proposal doesn’t sit well with any of my readers. We’re all workers, I doubt any of us is an owner. But here’s the rule of labor markets: easy go, easy come. The easier it is to fire a worker, the more willing a company will be to hire, and the more nimble a company will be at navigating a changing market.

If a UK company wants to expand, they have to do so very slowly and carefully because any new hire becomes a big liability after 2 years. UK Companies can’t downsize to adjust to market conditions, and so they are hesitant to upsize even during the good times. That makes them grow more slowly, and believe it or not it reduces wages.

Let’s look at Meta as an example: they laid off tens of thousands of employees when the “metaverse” was proven to be a bust. They were able to lay off quickly and adjust their company focus because those metaverse employees weren’t guaranteed a silver parachute. If firing was harder, they might have held on to their losing bet on the metaverse for much longer, because the cost of firing mitigated the upside potential in changing tactics. Then again if firing was harder, Meta might have never made a big expensive bet on the metaverse to begin with.

See the metaverse was a big, expensive failure, but US companies have to expect that most of their bets will fail. But some bets will succeed and wipe out all the loses from the failures, and so US companies are very quick to hire when they’re chasing a big bet.

The ballooning wages in Tech are a symptom of this. Companies like Google and Amazon have made big bet after big bet in the last 20 years, and to when those bets pay off the company starts offering higher and higher wages to expand the company on the success of their big bet. Sometimes those bets go bad and you get layoffs like at Meta. But many of those bets go good and you find that starting salaries in America become higher than mid-tier salaries in most of Europe.

And while Tech is the most famous example, this is endemic in every American industry from energy to pharma and beyond. Liberalized labor markets mean companies are willing to make big bets, meaning some of those bets pay off and the workers get chased by higher salaries. The workers are ultimately the ones who benefit here, that’s why America is such a magnet for high-skilled immigration (on top of its attractiveness for all immigration). Even with Trump in power, tens of thousands of highly skilled immigrants will continue to come to America every year he’s in office, the salaries are just too good to pass up.

That was a lot more than I expected to write on labor markets, but I’ve got more if you’re interested. Stay tuned for the next exciting installment of “if I ruled the world.”