Tag Archives: Finance

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.

If I Ruled Britannia: economic reforms

Sir Keir Starmer, the newly elected King of England, 2024 pencil sketch

Last time on Streams of Consciousness, I was talking about the economy of Great Britain and what they needed to change to improve things. They’ve tried raising taxes, they’ve tried cutting spending, but their fiscal deficit is only rising and new loans to cover the deficit are getting ever more expensive. My previous recommendation was spicy and probably unpopular, so I quarantined it in its own post and am putting the rest of my recommendations here.

But first: what should Great Britain *not* do? Well first of all I agree with Tony Blair: they shouldn’t put retaliatory tariffs on America. And this isn’t because I’m biased and don’t want them to hurt America, it’s because *I want what’s best for Britain and don’t want them to hurt themselves*.

It may sting to allow Donald Trump a “win.” He’s jacked up tariffs and demanded that no one else retaliates with their own. If you do what he’s asking, aren’t you letting him win? Well if you think retaliatory tariffs are a smart move, you must think that because you believe they will hurt America with only a modest affect on your own country. But that’s wrong, tariffs are a huge blow to your own country, with only a modest affect on the one you’re tariffing. Doing what Donald Trump wants just means letting him win the foot-shooting competition.

Tariffs are inflation in action: everything gets more expensive for absolutely no reason. Because everything is more expensive, everyone is poorer (since their money doesn’t go as far). And tariffs don’t “protect” domestic industries, they destroy them. They destroy competitiveness because there is no market force pushing companies to improve their products. With tariffs, it’s always more viable to increase your profits by rent seeking (demanding the tariffs rise yet further) rather than by self-improvement. Thus the companies stagnate and rust out. Less goods are produced at a much higher cost, everyone is poorer.

This is true even when your tariffs are “targeted.” It’s just that “targeted” tariffs destroy only a few industries instead of all of them. Donald Trump tariffed you, but if you retaliate with tariffs on on American fuel and aircraft (major American exports), you’ll harm your own airline industry by raising their costs. Needless to say your airlines will have to raise their own costs, harming your tourism/travel industries, and thereby harming your citizens who can no longer afford airfares. America will feel some harm, yes, but not as much as your own people.

“We’ll substitute American goods by buying goods from Europe!” Trump wants to substitute foreign goods with American goods, do you think that will work for him? It won’t work for you either.

Tariffs also destroy industries by raising the cost of all their inputs, since again tariffs are just inflation. The steel company can raise its prices since it’s no longer competing with Chinese steel, and has no incentive to innovate because it plans to ask for more tariffs next year. So if you’re a manufacturing company making anything with steel, all your steel just got very expensive and will only get more expensive from here. Might as well cut wages, it’s the only cost you can control.

Many manufacturers will go bankrupt, they can’t afford the higher prices. A few dozen steel jobs will be “saved” at the cost of thousands of higher-paying manfacturing jobs. Those steel workers will then be laid off because with all the manufacturers going bankrupt, no one needs so much steel. And besides, the cost of iron has gone up with the tariffs on iron (and the iron mine is soon to go bankrupt as they can’t afford the machines needed to keep mining).

Think of it this way: if you think retaliatory tariffs are a good idea, then you think Trump’s tariffs in general are a good idea. You agree with him that the tariffs hurt the target countries more than they hurt the country placing them. You think Trump is doing smart economic policy, and are just mad that he’s doing it to *you*.

So again, don’t complain about giving Trump a *win*, reject the cognitive dissonance on tariffs and accept the one and only truth: tariffs are bad for growth, bad for prices, and bad for workers. Biden knew this in 2019, but I fear the cognitive decline hit him fast since he forgot it by 2021. (example, example, example)

Anyway that’s what Britain *shouldn’t* do, so what *should* it do?

How about reducing the need for occupational licensing? “Licensing” sounds good in theory, the Government is going to step in and demand minimum qualifications for certain professions. But everything sounds good when you ignore the costs and handwave the benefits.

Licensing sounds nice because you immediately think of doctors and nurses. But many many jobs have mandatory licenses that simply do not need them. Does a horse trainer really need a license? A piano tuner? A wig-maker? Adding a license does nothing except make it harder for people to get jobs. It’s part of what’s killed “entry-level” positions, there is no such thing as “entry-level” in an industry where any work at all requires a specific license.

20% of UK jobs need a specific license, which ossifies the labor marker and prevents workers from job-hopping to find better wages. You may have veterinary training, a fondness for horses, and see well-paying jobs opening up in the horse-racing industry. But without a long and arduous licensing process, you’re cut out from that part of the labor market, forced to keep working at Tesco for almost nothing.

You may ask “but without a license, how can we ensure these workers are competent?” You interview them, you look at their CV, you contact prior employers. An incompetent employee can do damage yes, for instance an incompetent Tesco stocker can leave heavy merchandise off-balance to crush unwary shoppers, so do shelf stockers need a license? Be honest, exactly how much is saved by having entry-level jobs be licensed? Quantify all the harms, both physical and monetary, then weigh them up against the costs.

Because licensing *does* have a cost. It lowers social mobility since the lower class can’t afford to spend years getting licensed before getting their first job. It hampers growth by preventing industries from growing to meet demand. And it drastically raises costs for licensed labor, without really raising wages.

How can that be? Aren’t licensed jobs paid more than unlicensed? Yes but look at the cost of getting that license, with its years of training and bureaucracy. Look at the cost of *keeping* that license, with mandatory retraining, continuing education, and the like. Time is money, and all the time it takes getting and keeping a license usually drains any additional pay that the license brings.

And look at how that license locks you into a single career, unable to switch things up to chase a higher wage. I’m sorry, you’re a *horse* trainer, *dog* training is a different license.

And study after study shows that very few licenses improve outcomes. Doctor, nurse, these require years of training and understudy, a license here may be warranted. But this kind of thinking is needlessly applied to far too many jobs, most of which show no difference in quality between licensed professionals (in countries where a license is needed), and unlicensed professionals (in countries where it isn’t). License medical and legal practitioners, let everyone else be.

So that’s occupational licensing. My next suggestion for Keir: end planning permission and build housing on the green belt. I wrote about the Green Belt before, but for those of you who missed it: the Green Belt isn’t green, and Britain should build on it.

“The Green belt” of is a bunch of land surrounding many of Britain’s largest cities. The name conjures to mind beautiful forests and fields, untouched by Man since the days of yore. But it’s actually car parks and monoculture farms, forbidden from being built on so that landowners can prevent their neighbor’s property from being bought up by the urban bourgeoisie. It’s a NIMBY version of feudalism.

And the Green Belt does have houses by the way. NIMBY houses for people who don’t want anyone to live near them, but also don’t want to pay for that privilege. Instead of buying the land surrounding their house (and thus paying tax on it), they simply demand no one *else* be allowed to build anything there.

So build on the Green Belt, put apartments on the car parks. Housing is unaffordable in Britain, build more houses and prices will come down. Build more apartments and rent will come down. And with housing and rent getting cheaper, people can afford to spend more on buying goods and services, pumping more money into the economy and creating more jobs.

Importantly, *the Government does not need to do this building*. Too many people think that if the Government is not actively building things, either with its own taxpayer-funded corporation or through special subsidies, then things just won’t get built. But that is not at all true. A plethora of private companies would love to build and sell houses, but Government laws prevent them. So just repeal the laws and the companies will build, no special subsidies or taxpayer-funded company necessary.

And while we’re at it, do away with local planning permission. People complain about developers “banking” land, holding it without building for years. That’s only done because it takes on average a *decade* to get permission to build anything. If someone wants to build and sell houses, buying the land is step 1, steps 2-90 are all planning permission. Cut out those steps and the houses will be built faster and cheaper.

Local councils hold far too much power to block housing, get rid of that power. Instead of a situation where council have to give “permission,” create a national “by-right” system of planning. Developers submit a proposal to build a dwelling at a location, a national organization makes sure it’s up to code, and once they OK it development starts. No more veto-ocracy by local NIMBYs.

Great Britain is no longer a feudal society, you shouldn’t require the permission of the local landlords to build on your own land. Local landlords don’t want you to build a nice apartment that competes with their crack house? Tough. End local planning permission and kick the landlords to the curb.

And now here’s my final suggestion for Keir Starmer, get rid of bank ring-fencing.

Actually that’s not my suggestion, but it was raised as a possibility by British politicians. And the suggestion isn’t that outlandish, Germany ended its ring-fencing over a decade ago

But wait, what is/was ring-fencing? In 2008, the Financial Crisis/Great Recession happened when banks made risky loans, those loans defaulted, and the banks went bust. This cause a knock-on effect throughout the economy.

The risky loans often came from the “investment” side of the banking business, but when the bank went bust even the the “core” side (which held consumer’s money) was hit. Ring-fencing meant keeping investment banking separate from consumer banking, so any bad investment bets would have no effect on consumer savings.

But banks are banks, and economies of scale mean one bank doing two things is usually more efficient than two separate banks. That’s why some want to get rid of ring-fencing and let banks make more money. Germany already did so, why shouldn’t Great Britain? Let the good times roll again.

I don’t know if ending ring-fencing is good or not because honestly I don’t actually know much about its effect. What efficiency is gained by combining consumer banking and investment banking? What is lost by ring-fencing? But I don’t reflexively hate this idea the way I probably would have hated it 10 years ago, less than a decade after the Financial Crisis. I don’t know, I’ll need to do more reading.

So anyway those are my proposals the economy of Great Britain. Keir, if you’re reading: work on this for me, would you?

Deregulation is a dirty word on the left mostly because it’s a clean word on the right. But this reflexive partisanship isn’t helpful, regulations are not always good. Removing bad ones is necessary for an economy to grow. And if Labour wants growth, if they want to stop having to come out with more taxes and less spending every six months, then they need deregulation.

Post Script: Talking about the banking deregulation, I was reminded of Thatcher’s “Financial Big Bang.” No time to discuss it today, but I hope I remember to do so soon, because it’s a fascinating topic that explains a lot about today’s Great Britain.

“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.”

If the government doesn’t do this, no one will

I’m not exactly happy about the recent NIH news. For reference the NIH has decided to change how it pays for the indirect costs of research. When the NIH gives a 1 million dollar grant, the University which receives the grant is allowed to demand a number of “indirect costs” to support the research.

These add up to a certain percentage tacked onto the price of the grant. For a Harvard grant, this was about 65%, for a smaller college it could be 40%. What it meant was that a 1 million grant to Harvard was actually 1.65 million, while a smaller college got 1.4 million, 1 million was always for the research, but 0.65 or 0.4 was for the “indirect costs” that made the research possible.

The NIH has just slashed those costs to the bone, saying it will pay no more than 15% in indirect costs. A 1 million dollar grant will now give no more than 1.15 million.

There’s a lot going on here so let me try to take it step by step. First, some indirect costs are absolutely necessary. The “direct costs” of a grant *may not* pay for certain things like building maintenance, legal aid (to comply with research regulations), and certain research services. Those services are still needed to run the research though, and have to be paid for somehow, thus indirect costs were the way to pay them.

Also some research costs are hard to itemize. Exactly how much should each lab pay for the HVAC that heats and cools their building? Hard to calculate, but the building must be at a livable temperature or no researcher will ever work in it, and any biological experiment will fail as well. Indirect costs were a way to pay for all the building expenses that researchers didn’t want to itemize.

So indirect costs were necessary, but were also abused.

See, unlike what I wrote above, a *university* almost never receives a government grant, a *primary investigator* (called a PI) does instead. The PI gets the direct grant money (the 1 million dollars), but the University gets the indirect costs (the 0.4 to 0.65 million). The PI gets no say over how the University spends the 0.5 million, and many have complained that far from supporting research, the University is using indirect costs to subsidize their own largess, beautifying buildings, building statues, creating ever more useless administrative positions, all without actually using that money how it’s supposed to be used: supporting research.

So it’s clear something had to be done about indirect costs. They were definitely necessary, if there were no indirect costs most researchers would not be able to research as Universities won’t allow you to use their space for free, and direct costs don’t always allow you to rent out lab space. But they were abused in that Universities used them for a whole host of non-research purposes.

There was also what I feel is a moral hazard in indirect costs. More prestigious universities, like Harvard, were able to demand the highest indirect costs, while less prestigious universities were not. Why? It’s not like research costs more just because you have a Harvard name tag. It’s just because Harvard has the power to demand more money, so demand they shall. Of course Harvard would use that extra money they demanded on whatever extravagance they wanted.

The only defense of Harvard’s higher costs is that it’s doing research in a higher cost of living environment. Boston is one of the most expensive cities in America, maybe the world. But Social Security doesn’t pay you more if you live in Boston or in Kalamazoo. Other government programs hand you a set amount of cash and demand you make ends meet with it. So too could Harvard. They could have used their size and prestige to find economies of scale that would give them *less* proportional indirect costs than could a smaller university. But they didn’t, they demanded more.

So indirect costs have been slashed. If this announcement holds (and that’s never certain with this administration, whether they walk it back or are sued to undo it are both equally likely), it will lead to some major changes.

Some universities will demand researcher pay a surcharge for using facilities, and that charge will be paid for by direct costs instead. The end result will be the university still gets money, but we can hope that the money will have a bit more oversight. If a researcher balks at a surcharge, they can always threaten to leave and move their lab.

Researchers as a whole can likely unionize in some states. And researchers, being closer to the university than the government, can more easily demand that this surcharge *actually* support research instead of going to the University’s slush fund.

Or perhaps it will just mean more paperwork for researchers with no benefit.

At the same time some universities might stop offering certain services for research in general, since they can no longer finance that through indirect costs. Again we can hope that direct costs can at least pay for those, so that the services which were useful stay solvent and the services which were useless go away. This could be a net gain. Or perhaps none will stay solvent and this will be a net loss.

And importantly, for now, the NIH budget has not changed. They have a certain amount of money they can spend, and will still spend all of it. If they used to give out grants that were 1.65 million and now give out grants that are 1.15 million, that just means more individual grants, not less money. Or perhaps this is the first step toward slashing the NIH budget. That would be terrible, but no evidence of it yet.

What I want to push back on though, is this idea I’ve seen floating around that this will be the death of research, the end of PhDs, or the end of American tech dominance. Arguments like this are rooted in a fallacy I named in the title: “if the government doesn’t do this, no one will.”

These grants fund PhDs who then work in industry. Some have tried to claim that this change will mean there won’t be bright PhDs to go to industry and work on the future of American tech. But to be honest, this was always privatizing profit and socializing cost. All Americans pay taxes that support these PhDs, but overwelmingly the benefits are gained by the PhD holder and the company they work for, neither of whom had to pay for it.

“Yes but we all benefit from their technology!” We benefit from a lot of things. We benefit from Microsoft’s suite of software and cloud services. We benefit from Amazon’s logistics network. We benefit form Tesla’s EV charging infrastructure. *But should we tax every citizen to directly subsidize Microsoft, Amazon, and Tesla?* Most would say. no. The marginal benefits to society are not worth the direct costs to the taxpayer. So why subsidize the companies hiring PhDs?

Because people will still do things even if the government doesn’t pay them. Tesla built a nation-wide network of EV chargers, while the American government couldn’t even build 10 of them. Even federal money was not necessary for Tesla to build EV chargers, they built them of their own free will. And before you falsely claim how much Tesla is government subsidized, an EV tax credit benefits the *EV buyer* not the EV seller. And besides, if EV tax credits are such a boon to Tesla, then why not own the fascists by having the Feds and California cut them completely? Take the EV tax credits to 0, that will really show Tesla. But of course no one will because we all really know who the tax credits support, they support the buyers and we want to keep them to make sure people switch from ICE cars to EVs

Diatribe aside, Tesla, Amazon, and Microsoft have all built critical American infrastructure without a dime of government investment. If PhDs are so necessary (and they probably are), then I don’t doubt the market will rise to meet the need. I suspect more companies will be willing to sponsor PhDs and University research. I suspect more professors will become knowledgeable about IP and will attempt to take their research into the market. I suspect more companies will offer scholarships where after achieving a PhD, you promise to work for the company on X project for Y amount of years. Companies won’t just shrug and go out of business if they can’t find workers, they will in fact work to make them.

I do suspect there will be *less* money for PhDs in this case however. As I said before, the PhD pipeline in America has been to privatize profits and subsidize costs. All American taxpayers pay billions towards the Universities and Researchers that produce PhD candidates, but only the candidates and the companies they work for really see the gain. But perhaps this can realign the PhD pipeline with what the market wants and needs. Less PhDs of dubious quality and job prospect, more with necessary and marketable skills.

I just want to push back on the idea that the end of government money is a deathknell for industry. If an industry is profitable, and if it sees an avenue for growth, it will reinvest profits in pursuit of growth. If the government subsidizes the training needed for that industry to grow, then instead it will invest in infrastructure, marketing, IP and everything else. If training is no longer subsidized, then industry will subsidize it themselves. If PhDs are really needed for American tech dominance, then I absolutely assure you that even the complete end of the NIH will not end the PhD pipeline, it will simply shift it towards company-sponsored or (for the rich) self-sponsored research.

Besides, the funding for research provided by the NIH is still absolutely *dwarfed* by what a *single* pharma company can spend, and there are hundreds of pharma companies *and many many other types of health companies* out there doing research. The end of government-funded research is *not* the end of research.

Now just to end on this note: I want to be clear that I do not support the end of the NIH. I want the NIH to continue, I’d be happier if its budget increased. I think indirect costs were a problem but I think this slash-down-to-15% was a mistake. But I think too many people are locked into a “government-only” mindset and cannot see what’s really out there.

If the worst comes to pass, and if you cannot find NIH funding, go to the private sector, go to the non-profits. They already provided less than the NIH in indirect costs but they still funded a lot of research, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Open your mind, expand your horizons, try to find out how you can get non-governmental funding, because if the worst happens that may be your only option.

But don’t lie and whine that if the government doesn’t do something, then nobody will. That wasn’t true with EV chargers, it isn’t true with biomedical research, and it is a lesson we all must learn if the worst does start to happen.

Thomas Friedman’s the-world-is-flatitude

Flatitude is supposed to be a play on attitude

I remember reading about Thomas Friedman’s “The World is Flat” thesis years ago. Put simply: he proposed that globalization meant the USA no longer enjoyed a by-default pre-eminance in the world economy. American companies and workers now had to compete with the entire world, and that inevitably would lead to worldwide wages equalizing and other companies rising up to meet American dominance. Gone are the days when an American can work for the world’s biggest company, headquartered in their hometown, and then go on vacation to places where “everything is so cheap!” The world’s biggest companies will be more likely to be headquartered in China and India than America, and wages worldwide will rise to the point that every country is as expensive to visit as America.

20 years on, none of that has happened.

At times and at places, global wages have risen relative to America. At times and at places, global companies have risen into industries once dominated by America. But in 2005, when Friedman published his book, the top 10 global companies by market cap were 80% American. In 2024, they’re 90% American. And in certain years (like 2016 and 2017), they’ve been 100% American. American companies still rule the global roost, and American wages are still the highest on earth. International workers still prefer to immigrate to America, despite the massive costs and uncertainties, rather than find a job with a global company in their home country.

I don’t know how Friedman himself portrayed his thesis in 2005, but in my part of the world (liberal and anti-American-by-default because the sitting president was a Republican), there was a lot of “take that America! You won’t stay on top for long and you’d better get used to it!” I think Friedman had a misread of history, and the readers had an even greater misread of the present.

There is a default mindset that I feel many people fall into when talking about economics. The idea goes: America used to be on top of the world because of unfair, random advantages. Those could be colonialism, those could be early industrialization. But now that the world is more fair (or once we *make it* more fair), America can’t coast on inertia, it will have to compete on a level playing field, and *of course* the rest of the world, which has 95% of the population to America’s 5%, will eventually out-compete it in *many* areas.

I think this belies a misunderstanding of the unfair advantages that America has *right now*. India, Nigeria, and China all have large populations, lots of natural resources, and growing middle classes. But it’s difficult to do business there because of import/export and currency restrictions, and often-times everything can be taken from you by government fiat, so it’s harder to create success and you’re more likely to leave the country if you do manage it. And when you leave the country, you can always go to Europe, but if you want to keep growing your business or your personal finances you go to America where the wages are higher and the business climate friendlier.

Friedman said that globalization, the technology that connects us and the legal/social willingness to offshore jobs and production will inevitably lead to a flattening of global economies and global wages. Why would Microsoft pay $100,000 to a programmer in America, when a programmer just as good in India will cost $10,000? They won’t. And so there will be more demand for Indian programmers and less and less demand for American ones. Law of supply and demand means American wages will fall and Indian wages will rise until the two equalize.

But alternatively, why would Microsoft put its money into India (as it must do in order to have the bank accounts, rental agreements, and so on which allow it to employ Indian workers), when capital controls will restrict its ability to get its money back out again? Companies don’t exist for a country’s good, they exist for their own good, and Microsoft wants to be able to move its money anywhere and everywhere at a moment’s notice. Capital controls, like what the developing world still employs, make it harder to do so, and make companies like Microsoft and others far more leery about investing in those countries.

An employee in America costs 10x as much, but at least your money will never get stuck in America with no way out.

And this is just the one example that leapt off the page at me. There are plenty more reasons why the world is not flat and probably won’t ever be. There are network affects to the USA that may take centuries to undo, such as the preeminence of the US stock markets at the expense of all others. India investors throw their money into the S&P more than the Indian stock markets, so an Indian company looking to grow fast with public money also needs to list on the S&P. That draws it further and further into connecting with the American economy, until it starts making more and more sense to just do its business in America as well. Oh it would never think of uprooting from India (and the government won’t allow it anyway), but it will invest more in American operations and less in Indian operations than it would if it didn’t get drawn to America by all the money that’s there.

Then there’s security. For all the internet memes, America is a safer place with a generally lower death rate than developing nations like India and Nigeria. There’s a whole lot of reasons for this, but it isn’t something that can be fixed quickly and easily with a bit more money. So an Indian worker would still prefer to make their money in America if it means they get to live in America as well, even if they could make the same amount of money in India.

I think there is a general under-estimating of what makes the American economy so strong. A lot of people assume it’s just inertia: America industrialized early, got to coast on colonialism, and then wasn’t destroyed in World War 1 and 2. That meant that it emerged in the 50s as the strongest economy on earth, but without those lucky breaks it has no reason to stay the strongest. So people assume America has just been coasting and the rest of the world will quickly catch up. I don’t think that’s the truth. A lot less attention is paid to just how much America’s laws and economic setup make doing business here easier than anywhere else.

There’s a separate meme about how “lucky” America is that it keeps finding natural resources everywhere. Coal, oil recently Helium, America just seems “lucky.” But while hydrocarbons certainly aren’t found everywhere, America isn’t *really* just lucky. The recent American oil boom is driven by fracking, and Europe could have joined in the boom except that they banned fracking entirely. There is plenty of frack-able (is that a word?) oil underneath Europe, even if there aren’t any Saudi-style oil fields there, but Europe can’t join the oil boom because its laws don’t allow it.

And American finds of lithium, helium and so on aren’t just luck either. In America, if you own a piece of land you generally own the mineral rights beneath it. That makes it economically viable to just start searching the land for any big piles of lithium/helium and so on, because if you find any its yours by default and you win a lot of money.

But in Australia, many mineral rights are held by the states. So why would I ever go hunting for lithium/helium on my land if I may not be able to get money out of it? If I have to pay the state a portion of my winnings? There’s probably just as much ultra-precious metals in Australia as there are in America, but less of it gets found because there’s less incentive. Not to say *nothing* gets found, Australia does have a mining-intensive economy, but less than if individuals had an incentive to go looking.

I just wanted to post this to say that the world is not flat, and America is not just lucky. Luck may play a role, but writers and commentators often don’t understand how America’s current laws and economic setup give it a *current* competitive advantage relative to all the other countries on earth. It isn’t just coasting on its *past* competitive advantage from the 1950s, and there’s no guarantee that the rest of the world *must* catch up to America unless they loosen their economic laws in turn.

If I were president of Nigeria

You may have read in the news that Nigeria is going through an economic crisis. I feel most news agencies haven’t done a lot of due diligence, they have poured plenty of ink over the human interest stories of people unable to buy petrol, of the mass protests, and of the government’s response. But they haven’t done anything to explain the economic underpinnings of the crisis.

At best they may have given you a few basic facts. The president cut fuel subsidies and currency controls; the price of everything skyrocketed; the president says some pain is necessary. But they aren’t doing anything more than blaming the president’s actions for the crisis while also blandly repeating his assertions of “no pain, no gain.”

WHY did the president do what he did? Why does he think it’s necessary? What has it achieved? What has it *not* achieved? And what could he be doing differently?

Nigerian President Tinubu came into power only last year, amid an already languid economy. He comes from the same party as his predecessor, but was not content to be “Continuity Buhari,” he wanted to shake things up. At his inauguration, he announced the end of the fuel subsidy “with immediate effect.” People of course rushed out to buy the last of the subsidized fuel before prices skyrocketed. Not long after, he began loosening currency controls. The central bank had been artificially inflating the value of the Naira, and so without these controls it’s value came crashing down.

But I don’t think Tinubu did this because he hates poor people and doesn’t want to spend money on them. I think there were dire financial circumstances that demanded these actions, but not only do they demand *more* actions that Tinubu seems unwilling to entertain, but he himself has not been a great spokesman for why he did this.

To start with, the fuel subsidy was costing Nigeria an incredible amount each day. Nigeria maintains a relatively low tax environment thanks to a state monopoly on oil which is the government’s main source of revenue. The fuel subsidy hoovered up between 15 and 25 percent of this government revenue, a huge outflow that badly constrained government finances while also inhibiting a transition to renewable, perhaps even cheaper energy like wind and solar.

Meanwhile, the currency controls also costed Nigeria greatly. There are two ways to maintain an artificially powerful currency: buying currency on the local market and restricting the movement of currency into and out of the country.

The Nigerian central bank spent loads of dollars and euros from its vault buying up naira (Nigeria’s currency) on the global market, to raise the price of naira relative to these other currencies. But this was never enough to keep the value of the naira up, the central bank’s “official” exchange rate was always around 100 to 1000 times more expensive than what the naira was *actually* worth. The black market exchange rate pegged the naira as being worth way way less than what the central bank said.

In normal circumstances, this black market rate would quickly take over, obliterating the value of the naira as people trade naira for dollars at fair market prices, rather than the bank’s artificially set price. So currency controls were implemented to prevent this.

There were (and still somewhat are) huge restrictions on bringing dollars or foreign currency into Nigeria. It’s hard to bring cash on an airplane, and if you send money digitally through a bank, the Nigerian central bank will forcibly convert your dollars into naira at their set price, turning your 100 dollars into say 10,000 naira instead of the 1,000,000 naira they’re actually worth. This loses you a lot of money. And then there are crackdowns on any unofficial money changers, all this means that it’s very restrictive to move money into and out of the country.

But what if you’re a tourist, or a business that wants to invest in Nigeria? Then the central bank’s currency scheme is a certain way to fleece you for your dollars. Nigeria (like most countries) demands all transactions be in its local currency, the naira. So if you want to buy Nigerian yams, either because you’re a tourist who wants to eat yams or because you’re an exporter wanting to export them on the global market, you need to change your dollars into naira to do so. This either means losing 90% of your dollar’s value through the official exchange rate, or risking jail time by smuggling dollars into the country and using a black market money changer.

Either way, this makes investment *and* tourism a lot more precarious, and does even more to scare foreign money *out* of the country, at a time when Nigeria desperately needs money coming *in* to save its beleaguered industries.

To get back to Tinubu, he saw that Nigeria’s government finances were not good. The government deficit ran 5% of GDP, and was growing. It was difficult, and VERY expensive for Nigeria to borrow money on the world market because of this, so continuing the deficit-spending path was merely robbing future generations to pay for the present generation.

So he wanted to cut spending and boost investment. He cut the fuel subsidy, since it costed so much of the government’s revenue, and he loosened currency controls so that it’s easier to invest in Nigeria. In this way he hope to grow the economy and raise tax revenue. In the long run, this should provide *more* money to support the people.

Loosening currency controls however, led to triple digit inflation, as the naira’s official value finally caught up to its black market value. And combined with the end of the fuel subsidy this made everyone a lot poorer and made food and basic necessities a lot more expensive.

There’s a glimmer of hope that Tinubu’s plans are working, foreign investment is surging and perhaps after so much pain, Nigeria can come out the other side with a stronger economy that can actually spend more on its people, more on education, safety, and medical welfare instead of just subsidizing petrol. But it may also be far to little to save Tinubu’s presidency, and his successor can just undo it all to appease the populace.

I think the gains would come a lot faster for Tinubu if he were willing to be a truly radical reformer, and not just cut spending on the poor.

In addition to the fuel subsidy and currency restrictions which make investing in Nigeria difficult, the country also has a highly restrictive trade policy which isn’t making things any easier. Nigeria prohibits the import of a wide variety of products, from staple crops like cassava (related to the yam or sweet potato) to cement to eggs and meat. The only justification for this is to “protect domestic industry and farmers,” but let me rebut that:

First of all, people cannot afford food! The end of the fuel subsidy, the floating of the currency, these have put the price of food out of reach of many Nigerians. There are thousands of foreign companies, in West Africa and the rest of the world who can step in to provide more food if import restrictions are lifted. More food means a drop in the cost of food, through the laws of supply and demand, and so this increase in supply would go at least some way towards alleviating the hardships brought on by Tinubu’s other reforms.

And furthermore, importing food would create just as many jobs, if not more, than it “destroyed.” Markets need workers to staff them, trucks need drivers, loaders, unloaders and ports need all the same. Importing eggs so that people can afford to eat might make it harder to a poultry farmer to compete, but it would also create a number of jobs in logistics, supply, and customer-facing roles to get those eggs into people’s hands.

Furthermore, the unemployed farmer need not remain so. The high price of eggs makes it hard not only for customers to afford eggs, but also for any industry that uses eggs to afford them. Ice cream is very popular in Nigeria, but locally made ice cream is more expensive than it should be because the price of eggs remains high. But importing eggs would lower the price of eggs by driving up supply, and would allow ice cream manufacturers to buy more eggs, make more ice cream, and thus they’d need to hire more loaders and unloaders, more line workers, more mechanics for their ice cream machines, and so on. The loss of jobs in the poultry industry would easily be replaced by the gain of jobs in every manufacturing industry which uses eggs as an input.

And new industries could also be created. The thing about the government controlling the economy (as it does when it restricts the import and export of goods) is that the government doesn’t know as well as the market what a country’s competitive advantage is. And by stifling the import of so many goods, the Nigerian government makes it difficult for the economy to *find* those competitive advantages.

The USA eats far more pineapples than it produces, but imported pineapples are often packaged and canned in the USA, and that packaging and canning industry employs far more people than pineapple-growing alone ever could. And it’s not as if the USA *couldn’t* grow pineapples. California, and Florida all grow pineapples, but they have found competitive advantages in other products (like oranges or computer software) and the pineapple-growing jobs are instead pineapple-canning jobs, which are higher paid as well.

So if Nigeria ended its import restrictions, not only would individuals be able to afford groceries, but industries would be created and expanded, growing the economy. Nigeria would be able to find its competitive advantages, the things it does better than every country on earth, and would better exploit those advantages for growth and profit.

I will throw a bone to the populists who say that the fuel subsidies and currency controls may have been lifted *too fast*. I haven’t looked into it, but perhaps the pain would have been minimized, and the disruptions smoothed out, if these reforms were phased in such a way that the economy could better adjust. But if I were advising president Tinubu, my primary advice would be that he isn’t going far enough. End the trade restrictions, help the people afford basic goods, and help the industries grow through competitive advantage. The end result will be a much better economy than when you cut all the subsidies but still try to “protect” entrenched industries.

Why is State Farm leaving California?

note: I had intended to publish this months ago. But I never finished it, and now I’m struggling to get a post out in time, so I’ve tried to make this one acceptable.

There was recently news that State Farm insurance is leaving California, and will no longer accept new customers. Perhaps they may even kick old customers off their plans and refuse to do any business in California at all. This caused a wave of reactions, from consternation that a company could be so mean to California, to demands that State Farm “reimburse” customers who have paid for years with no claims, to calls to nationalize the insurance companies because “clearly” they’re just stealing from the little guy.

All these reactions will be addressed in turn, but first, let’s talk about how insurance works. If you recall my post from way back about Ric Flair and his gym, insurance is just a way to reduce your downside risk in exchange for a small lose of your upside gain. You pay a little every month and in exchange if your house or business is destroyed, you get some money back.

What’s important is that insurance is structured like a bet: the insurance company is betting that nothing bad will happen to your property during the period of your insurance, if they win the bet they keep your money and you get nothing in return (except maybe peace of mind). While they only pay out if they lose the bet and your property *is* damaged. Because of this, many people see insurance as a scam. Why would I ever pay if I don’t expect my property to be damaged? Well you’re mitigating risk, maybe there’s only a 1% chance your home is destroyed, but that’s a 1% chance that you lose *everything* and are left utterly homeless unless you have insurance to cover the cost of rebuilding your home. Isn’t it worth it to pay a little to ensure you aren’t homeless from an act of God?

Now first, I want to quickly call out a very dumb line of reasoning I’ve seen floating around regarding insurance. I’m not quoting any one tweet or post, but synthesizing what I’ve seen in many places at many times:

Why isn’t there a refund check for insurance like taxes? I’ve paid so much without using the policy, and even if I make a claim, they find ways to avoid paying. Total scam!

This sentiment belies a complete failure to understand insurance on even the most *basic* level. To start with, if you want a refund because you’ve paid in without using the policy, should the insurance company be able to demand more money if you paid in and then *did* use the policy? Of course not, you’d call them insane and selfish. But realize that it’s the identical situation, in reverse.

An insurance policy is simple: you pay regularly and they pay if certain conditions are met. Of course “certain conditions” can be interpreted differently by different people. And insurance companies are profit-maximizing (like all companies) they’ll try to avoid paying when they can. But this is a necessary evil, better the company try to limit payouts than it go bankrupt overpaying it’s customers. Because then every *other* customer would suddenly lose their insurance.

So finally, why is State Farm leaving California? Because they can’t make a profit. Most states regulate insurance incredibly heavily, to the extent that they put price caps on insurance premiums. That way the company cannot raise prices without the state’s say so. And if the state won’t let a company raise prices to cover rising costs (and costs ARE rising because of inflation and climate change), then the insurance company is not obligated to subsidize a state with coverage cheaper than costs.

As is so common, people blame the free market for a government-run system.

The point of government isn’t just to spend money

It’s election season, so I’m being inundated with election spam on every social media and traditional media I use. I know election posts probably aren’t people’s favorites, but this is the streams of my consciousness and I just wanted to vent.

To start with, some of the twitterati are pulling an absolute masterclass in doublethink. Centrists in the commentariat have been crowing for the last 4 years about how Biden has pumped more oil than any president in history. They’ve been dunking on Republicans about how despite Trump and the GOP’s rhetoric, Biden is more carbon friendly than Trump was.

Now, every words of this is true. I pointed out years ago how despite a small pandemic dip oil production has steadily increased during both Biden and Trump’s presidencies. Biden has inherited a fracking boom, and has not done anything to clamp down on it, so record-setting oil production is to be expected.

But the same commentariat that will crow about Biden’s oil boom will screech in anger and confusion when climate groups like the Sunrise Movement announce they won’t support Biden’s re-election. How can they do that? How can they refuse to support the president who has pumped more oil than any other in history? Gee, maybe because Democrats have said that Climate Change is an existential threat for years, and these folks actually believe it? Seems pretty obvious to me why the Sunrise Movement and other climate groups wouldn’t be happy with Biden’s energy policy.

As a defense, the commetariat likes to point to Biden’s massive spending bills. Billions and billions of dollars are being pumped into the green energy sector, and Democrat columnists are producting hockey-stick graphs comparing Biden’s green spending to previous presidents as proof of his climate success.

The problem with this is that the point of the government isn’t just to spend money. The point of the government is to get results. How much has that billions of dollars actually achieved?

For example, we all know that switching to electric cars is hard when there’s so few charging stations. Biden’s climate bills were supposed to build charging stations across the country to combat this. How many charging stations have Biden’s Billions actually created? As of May this year, just 8. But don’t worry, that number is growing! In March it was just 7! With a rough estimate of 1 charging station every 2 months, can anyone say these billions (trillions!) of dollars are being well spent?

This is exactly the kind of thing that If We Can Put a Man on the Moon… discussed. Politicians are incentivized to declare victory immediately for their re-election campaign. This leads to them touting metrics like “amount of money spent” instead of something actually useful like “miles of track laid” or “amount of actual EV infrastructure.” And since “money spent” is the only metric politicians are focusing on, that money gets spent extremely badly.

Years later, when the money is all spent and the infrastructure is still crumbling, a new campaign will of course arise, saying we now need to spend even *more* money to fix this thing that should have been fixed with the first tranche.

Let me be clear: I believe that climate change is a problem we need to address. But I do not think government spending is the best way to address that. In the last year, Tesla has built around 40 times more EV charging stations than Biden’s infrastructure bill, and they didn’t use taxpayer money to do it.

So why does it *have* to be government spending? I think it’s honestly because a lot of politicians don’t believe that companies can ever accomplish things. When you spend your entire life in government, every problem looks like a taxpayer-funded nail.

The government *can* solve these problems, but it doesn’t need to spend billions to do so. You really want to improve charging infrastructure? Tax gasoline. Tax oil. Tax every step of the refinement process. You will see how quickly consumers shift to electric cars, and how quickly companies spring up to service those electric cars. Hell, a network of gas stations already exists all across the country. If gas was taxed and consumers switched to electric cars, those stations would quickly be forced to switch from offering gas to offering fast electric charging.

You may say that a gas tax would hurt American consumers, but it would hurt them no more than the spending-fueled inflation that America has right now.

Here’s the funniest thing: politicians have adopted the language of the market and claimed that government spending is an investment. We are investing in green energy. But investment expects a return, and if the return on billions of dollars investment is 8 or so EV stations, that isn’t an investment, it’s a ripoff.

Biden chose to keep oil cheap and burn money on 8 EV charging stations. Is it any wonder climate activists don’t appreciate him? When success if measured in dollars spent, then failure is assured.

China is getting the trade war it deserves

And the US is getting the inflation it clearly wants.

Contrary to the title, this post will only be about America, because I don’t have any real insight into the CCP that hasn’t been covered elsewhere. But I read this article running cover for Biden’s disastrous policy of protectionism, and wanted to post my thoughts.

The central premise of the article is that cutting off trade with China is good because they’re a fascist and expansionist foreign adversary. Now, that’s also a great reason to cut off trade with Saudi Arabia, but America’s trade policy isn’t actually about foreign policy, as you’ll soon find out.

Even more importantly, tariffs don’t hurt the country you’re tariffing, or at least they hurt them *less* than they hurt your *own country*. Even Biden knows that, just ask the Biden of 2019

Tariffs are a great way to push up your own country’s inflation by taxing supply without reducing demand. Furthermore, even if you don’t buy Chinese products you will be paying for this inflation because of substitution effects: someone who is no longer able to buy a Chinese EV may instead purchase an American car, increasing demand for American cars and therefore driving up their price.

There’s two great ways to understand how terrible tariffs are. First, think of the oil shock in the 1970s: middle east nations cut off America’s access to oil and gas from their countries, causing spiraling prices and runaway inflation. By blocking America’s access to energy, they were able to put an economic squeeze that defined the decade.

China is being tariffed on solar power, wind power, and green industries of all kinds, and China makes up more of our imports than the middle east ever did. Spiraling prices are yet again on the menu.

Furthermore, think of Britain’s strategy against Germany during both World Wars. Britain used its powerful navy to prevent Germany from importing goods. This caused shortages and spiraling inflation, leading to riots that overthrew the government in the First World War and overwhelming shortages during the Second.

Tariffs are a way for us to do to ourselves what our enemies would do to us in war: restrict the import of needed goods.

Finally, consider Biden’s empty words about the “existential threat” posed by Climate Change. If Climate Change is dire, then why is Biden raising tariffs on solar power, wind power, and EVs, rather than Chinese oil and Chinese airplanes? Biden is essentially setting up an “anti-carbon tax,” in which polluting industries are exempt from a tax being paid by green industries.

The truth is that none of this is about national security, anymore than the Japan Scare of the 1980s was about national security. Just look at how Japan’s peaceful economic expansion was seen back then:

“The Danger from Japan.” Mr. White warned that the Japanese were seeking to create another “East Asia Co‐prosperity Sphere”-this time by their “martial” trade policies, and that they would do well to “remember the course that ran from Pearl Harbor to the deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

Biden is a 1980s style politician, with the (failed) economic outlook of that time. When he sees foreigners being successful it makes him scared, so he raises tariffs to “protect” American industries. But far from protecting industries, tariffs only harm them.

Industries rely on consumers to sustain them, but tariffs are a tax on consumers, sucking up consumer surplus and leaving less money for consumers to spend on domestic industries. Politicians think that domestic industries can magically appear to replace all the foreign ones, but simply put: no man is an island and nor is any country. Autarky is the failed economic policy of fascism, not an economic model for democracies.

Just look at a country like Brazil. Heavy tariffs were supposed to promote domestic industries and help consumers. Instead, consumers pay exorbitant prices for things like video games, while Brazil’s gaming industry remains anemic relative to the nation’s size and wealth. Brazilian cars, Brazilian microchips, and Brazilian steel are not the envy of the world.

And it isn’t because Brazilians are bad at industry, its because their government is doing everything it can to stop them. The high tariffs on everything from steel to cars to microchips are supposed to spur domestic industry, but who’s going to open up a factory when you have to pay those high tariffs just to import the machines and inputs needed to make your products?

Biden is a protectionist because he’s a protectionist. Not because China or Canada are scary or because he needs to fight climate change. But to be fair, Trump is just as protectionist as Biden if not more-so. It’s clear that the current crop of American politicians supports higher inflation and poorer consumers. And that bodes ill if you want to see America succeed and its enemies fail.

Vibes and the economy

I don’t want to get too political, but it’s an election year (in several countries) and The Discourse is inevitable. But I want to quickly push back on something I’ve seen all too often on social media recently.

In America, the numbers for the economy look “good.” Unemployment is low, *really* low. Inflation is high, but wage growth is higher. And the stock market is up. So why are Americans’ perceptions of the economy so poor? Why is consumer confidence lower than it *should* be?

Some partisans and twitterati have decided that Trump Was Right and the problem is fake news. Legacy media and social media are both driving relentlessly negative press and this is brainwashing people into believing that the “good” economy is “bad.”

But instead I’d like to take take a step back and see if polls are telling us something that “the numbers” just aren’t. And I think I have good evidence that they are.

First, here’s a graph from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. It shows that housing affordability is lower than at any time since the 80, lower even than during the housing bubble that precipitated the Great Recession. If you’re a millennial or a zoomer, *never in your life has housing been less affordable than it is today*.

And housing isn’t just a “nice-to-have,” it sits at the bottom of Mazlo’s Hierarchy of Needs for a reason. A stable housing situation is (for most people) a necessary ingredient before they feel confident starting a family, putting down roots, or just feeling like they “belong” to where they live.

Now, you *can* have a stable housing situation in an apartment, but it’s much harder. Rent increases can drive you out, and rent-controlled apartments are hard to come by. Apartments also aren’t always conducive to the types of living that people want in their life.

So the price of housing is driving a *real crisis* in millennial and zoomer living, as people with otherwise high earnings are unable to obtain what lower-earnings folks could get in the past, namely a house to live in.

Then there’s the fact that datapoints about “all” millennials are missing key differences *between* millennials. See the next graph

The *median* millennial is doing worse than the median boomer was at this point in their life, in terms of net wealth, net assets, and housing. But the top 10% of millennials are doing way better than the boomers ever could, so taken together it seems like millennials are doing well overall. It’s like looking at a city where 1 person is a billionaire and 99 are destitute and saying that overall the city is very wealthy.

These kinds of mean/median differences are well-known to people in liberal circles, because they signal high inequality. But because a liberal is currently president, these differences are ignored by much of the twitterati.

I could say more about this topic, and I wish I had the energy to, but I’ve been so tired lately with my new medicine. Nevertheless, next time you see someone like Will Stancil screech that the kids are all morons and that everyone is rich, note that he is a member of that top 10%, not the median.

When people’s answers in polling are different than what “the fundamentals” suggest, it may be that the people are just stupid. But it’s far more likely that polling is capturing something that your data is ignoring. And right now that’s housing costs and growing inequality.