Tag Archives: history

Doing the Possible: When is it Impossible?

I recently wrote about “If We Can Put a Man on the Moon,” the book that wants to teach people how to do government well. Some of their message is simple: success in government requires a good plan executed well. But while they want their message to be non-partisan and universalist, I’m not sure it can ever work that way.

The big question I have is this: when is failure because of a good plan done poorly, and when is it because of an impossible plan that would never succeed? For instance, the book lays plenty of criticism at Nixon’s price controls and Ford’s purposeless “WIN” buttons, and it does so by saying that price controls and government nudging cannot control inflation. The book agrees with Milton Friedman than inflation is a monetary phenomenon, solved by Volcker when he hiked interest rates.

On the other hand, the book criticized many plans for their implementation rather than their ideas. Boston’s failed bussing experiment of the 70s is excoriated for how it was done with no real plan or input from the community. But is bussing ever a good policy for implementing desegregation? Many have looked back and said that no, bussing was never going to work. It was unpopular amongst both white and black communities. Just look at this blast from the past:

A majority of Americans continue to favor public school integration, but few people—black or white—think that busing is the best way to achieve that goal, the Gallup Poll reported yesterday.

Five per cent of the people in a recent survey by the organization—9 per cent of the blacks and 4 per cent of the whites—chose busing children from one, district to another rather than several other alternatives.

New York Times

Most of those interviewed preferred either changing school boundaries or providing low-income housing in middle-income neighborhoods as preferable plans for school integration. 

In the same vein, the book knocks the Iraqi occupation for having no plan for creating a stable, post-Saddam Iraq. But was that kind of “nation building” even possible for the US military to achieve? Especially in a country with such vast cultural and ideological differences to ours? 

I remember going to school with a guy who served in Iraq. He talked about how he was tasked with keeping Iraqis safe by removing weapons and disarming citizen. He once came to the tent of a Bedouin he thought had a gun and ammo. And when the Bedouin refused to let him search the tent, he simply ordered his troops to cut open all the Bedouin’s bags of rice, ruining his food but finding a hidden AK-47.

The soldier then said that he told this Bedouin “look, you should have just made this easy for us,” but all I could think of was “wow, this is why they fucking hate us.” This soldier just proudly violated the rights that we in America would call the 2nd and 4th amendment, and if he’d done that in America it would be a national scandal. Iraq may not have our constitution, but they still probably feel entitled to basic human rights of dignity and property. Even if we amended our constitution to remove the 2nd and 4th amendments, how would any American feel about armed military personnel breaking into their house, upturning all their belongings, and then stealing their stuff? 

So was “nation-building” even possible? Or was it, like bussing, an idea doomed from the start?

This is the difficulty in analyzing good governance, by focusing on the process you implicitly assume the idea is workable. Now, the authors do mention some ideas that they find impossible. They chide Nixon’s price caps because price caps can’t fix inflation, which is a monetary phenomenon. I happen to agree with them, but that’s because both I and the authors ascribe to an orthodox economic framework. A socialist would disagree with us, saying price caps are perfectly valid but that Nixon just used them poorly.

So a socialist might see Nixon’s price caps as a failure of implementation and not a failure of ideology. And while the authors see bussing and nation-building as failures of implementation and not ideology, a school choice advocate and a non-interventionist would disagree and say that for those ideas, a successful outcome was never possible. So how do you judge policies by their process, when people can’t agree on their possibility?

Ultimately, I think “a bad plan” vs “a good plan, poorly executed” is a political question for which there is no agreed upon answer. And to that, while the tenants of the book may be accepted broadly, it won’t do much to change the tenor of governance even if everyone in America agreed with it. All of politics is about the disagreement over “which plan is good,” and “how do we execute a plan well.” So telling people to “have good plans” and “execute them well” is sort of like telling a sprinter to “just run faster.” It’s advice that does nothing.

I think the book is good, I think it’s well worth a read by anyone interested in politics. I just think it’s impact will not be too great even in the minds of its readers.

Doing the Possible: Musings on good governance

I’ve been reading “If We Can Put a Man on the Moon,” which is a book that attempts to explain why some government policy succeeds and some fails. The book outlines how public policy requires a clear objective, a clear plan to reach that objective, and the ability to follow through with it. It all seems rather obvious when you write it out like that, but the book offers some definite insights.

A clear objective seems obvious, but is surprisingly easy to overlook. Gerald Ford promised to “whip inflation now,” but how exactly did he expect to do that? Supposedly the government would politely encourage citizens to do things like grow more food and use less fuel, to increase supply and decrease demand. It’s a nice idea, but polite encouragement doesn’t move the economy, and Fords “WIN” policy went nowhere.

A clear plan is also something that seems obvious, but often gets overlooked. When California reformed its electric grid in the 90s, no one had really thought through how the new system would work. They set mandates to ensure that prices were capped for consumers, but did nothing to ensure adequate supply. It was legal, for example, to buy power at a low price in California and export it for the uncapped price in other states. Then, if California didn’t have enough power, the utility was obligated to import power from other states no matter the cost, but was not allowed to pass this cost on to customers. This lead to companies easily gaming the system by exporting power for cheap, then re-importing it at a higher price. 

People like to blame greedy companies for the failed California power experiment, but companies are always greedy in all cases. The government should create a system in which corporate greed leads to societal good, such as how tech companies have given us ever better computers at lower and lower cost. Failure to plan leads to a system that is designed to fail.

The ability to follow through is a common complaint, but it too has unexpected pitfalls. The political class has different incentives than both the bureaucrats and the people, but they all work together for a plan to succeed. Politicians have an incentive to pass a bill and say they “fixed” something, that’s why most celebration happens on when a bill is pass instead of 5 years later when its effects are being evaluated. Bureaucrats are just career workers like anyone, and have an incentive to do their job and get paid. They aren’t incentivized to go above and beyond for the benefit of a politician who might not be there in four years. 

This is why it’s so common for politicians to take office promising “big changes” but still not accomplish much. Once the bill is passed and the photo-op is finished, it’s out of their hands and they don’t has a reason to keep caring. And when someone comes in saying they’ll “upend the stuffy bureaucracy,” well if they don’t meet the career employees halfway they’ll engender resentment in a group that can drag its feet and wait for the political will to die down.

All told, the book does have a lot of prescriptions for good governance:

  • Have an idea for how to fix a problem, and don’t make a plan of action without a strong idea. Likewise, seek out good ideas from everywhere, and be willing to challenge your own ideas to see if they’re actually appropriate.
  • Make a rational design for how the problem will be fixed. Focus on the design, not just on getting buy-in from the right pressure groups. Stress-test the design and hire people to poke holes in it. Then fix those design holes before passing a new law.
  • Ensure oversight and continued evaluation even after a law is passed. The job doesn’t end after the vote and the signature.
  • Understand that government is different than any other sector, and that you have to meet people halfway. You can’t treat public employees or the public at large as workers in your company or as cogs in a machine. 
  • Don’t assume the success of a plan. And don’t assume that just because it hasn’t failed yet that it won’t in the future. Look for any signs that cracks are forming, and fix them before they get too big. The space shuttle Colombia flew 27 missions, many of which showed problem signs, before the fateful 28th mission that ended in disaster.
  • Keep re-evaluating. If a program is no longer fit for purpose, fix it, replace it, or kill it. Be willing to see that something isn’t working and be willing to change it. And don’t keep trying the same program over and over without change, be willing to go back to the beginning and look for new ideas and new designs.

That, in a nutshell is what the book is about (or at least my reading of it). It’s certainly more uplifting that what you expect from a book about governance, but without ignoring the data and the details. I’ll have more to say on it later, but I think anyone who likes this sort of thing should check it out.

Beware of maps that are just population density maps

Sorry for forgetting to post last week. I haven’t kept up with this blog as much as I should be.

XKCD has a well-known comic showing how we too often overanalyze what are really just population density maps. It’s very easy to notice a pattern and extrapolate silly things from it. I recently saw another such example of this on social media I wanted to quickly bring up.

The implications of this map seems obvious, there were way more battles in Europe than anywhere else on earth. People on social media had all sorts of explanations:

Population density: battles mostly happen where people are, see the big stretch of emptiness in the Canadian Arctic, for instance. Europe has been densely populated for most of its history, so of course it had a lot of battles.

Recency bias: Europe fought 2 World Wars within the last century or so. As the largest wars in human history these of course had the most battles in human history, so there’s a lot of data points from that.

Warlike nature: maybe Europeans are just more warlike than the peaceful people in other parts of the world?

But the most obvious explanation seemed to be missing: Wikipedia is edited by the global online community, which is dominated by the the Anglosphere and Europe. Anglospheric and European editors will naturally gravitate towards writing many many articles about Europe and it’s history rather than the history of the world outside of Europe. A battle of 3000 people in the middle ages will have been studied by students in whatever country it happened in, even if it wasn’t important globally. And if that student was European or from the Anglosphere it’s more likely that they’ll grow up to be a Wikipedia editor and so add this unimportant battle into the encyclopedia.

So while there are some trends on this map that do come from the underlying data (ie there are way less battles in places where few people live), most of it is a function of bias. People write what they know. If there was an Indian version of Wikipedia instead, I’m certain the density of dots would be a lot higher there and a lot lower in Europe.

“The Crime of ’73”

Boy, these posts aren’t quite coming out weekly now are they?

I might have posted on this topic before, but I wanted to write something down and this was on my mind. It’s interesting how the controversies of yesteryear always fade away, even though in their day they dominated the news and the mind-space of politically conscious voters.

Take the Silver vs Gold movement. When America was founded, it had a bi-metallic standard, meaning that both silver and gold were legal tender. Congress set down in writing how much weight of silver made a dollar and how much gold made a dollar, and so both could be used to buy and sell. But of course, as commodities the price of silver and gold in the market would fluctuate, but congress didn’t understand or act quickly enough to fix things.

For example, silver mines in Mexico continued to run and depressed the price of silver relative to gold. This created an arbitrage opportunity because the price of gold was higher than that of silver:

  • Take 10 silver dollars and exchange them for 10 gold dollars, as they are equivalent
  • Take the gold dollars to Mexico and melt them down.
  • Take that gold and exchange it for raw silver
  • Bring that silver back to the Mint in America and demand to have it struck into silver dollars. Because of the price difference between silver and gold, the silver you brought back will make more than 10 dollars worth, so you can pocket the extra as your profit.
  • Start back from the beginning, trading 10 silver dollars for 10 gold dollars

This happened because congress set a fixed value for a commodity who’s value changed on the market, and as that value changed there was arbitrage created. Gold flowed out of the country and was replaced with silver. When the California gold rush happened, the price of gold suddenly decreased and the whole process reversed. Congress didn’t understand what was happening, and so simply decided to remove the bimetallic standard to stop this from happening.

But now we get to “The Crime of 1873.” When congress removed the silver standard in 1873, silver miners could no longer have their pure silver struck into coins that could be used as tender. The mint was by far the largest purchaser of silver and so removing silver from the standard removed most of the demand and so killed the price. Congress therefore upended the livelihoods of thousands of miners and mining towns by changing the laws on coinage. And those people never forgave them.

For years this “Crime” was the hottest topic in certain political sections. It was the litmus test for candidates and parties. And it was the entire foundation of the presidential candidacy of William Jennings Bryan. For years, certain voters would never vote for a candidate or party who had supported the “Crime,” and they may not have even kept polite company with voters who supported those candidates. In its time, the “Crime” was seen as the greatest betrayal possible, and plenty of people pointed to it as the reason for national or local economic problems. They blamed the “Crime” and hoped that overturning it would fix things.

Of course, America never regained the silver standard. For a time, the Federal government compromised and declared it would still buy silver from the miners directly, but in time even this subsidy was removed. The people affected by the “Crime” probably never forgave the Republicans (who passed the bill) for what they did. Indeed the “Crime’s” authors had a hard time defending their actions in the face of angry voters. Some authors claimed that the bill didn’t do what critics claimed, and that the US had technically been non-silver since 1853. Others claimed that ending the silver standard was an unintended biproduct. But this had the perverse effect of amplifying conspiracy theorists who believed the bill was passed with malicious intend, and giving ammo to those who wanted to overturn it.

In the 1880s and 1890s, the “Crime of 73” was as much a controversial topic as any political topic today. Friendships could be ended by it. But it too did pass. I think most of the controversies of our day shall also pass, these days even American History students will barely remember the “Crime.”

Good idea: financially supporting workers displaced by AI. Bad idea: taxing companies when for displacing workers with AI.

AI is again the topic of the day and people are discussing what to do about the coming “job-pocolypse.” It seems AI can do anything we humans can do better and so 30% or more of jobs will be destroyed and replaced by AI. Leaving aside how accurate that prediction is, if 30% of all jobs will be impacted then it does warrant a public policy response. Everyone’s got their own personal favorite, but one I see come up again and again is that companies should face a hefty tax any time they replace a worker with AI.

To be blunt, taxing companies for replacing workers with AI is a terrible idea. Let’s leave aside the argument of “how do you prove it,” and cut straight to the fact that the government should not be taxing technological progress. Just to start with some history, how many farmers were displaced by tractors? Millions. In 1900 40% of Westerners worked on farms, now it’s less than 5%. Tractors meant that a single farmer could do the labor of tens or hundreds of men, and so they could fire many of their farm hands to be replaced by tractors. But does anyone reading this wish nearly 1/2 of us were still farmers? Should the government have heavily taxes tractors to preserve the idyllic rural farm life?

The argument in favor of taxing companies that replace workers with a machine is that the company is becoming more profitable at the expense of the worker, and they should pay it back. The current hullabaloo is about being replaced by AI, but in the 20th century similar calls were made when factory workers were being replaced by robots. The problem with this argument is that ignores society. The worker and the company are not the only 2 pieces of the equation, society in general benefits when companies become more efficient. Technology is deflationary, and it has allows many products to drop or price or not increase as rapidly as wages in general. Food today costs less as a percent of annual income than at nearly any time in history, and a large part of that is because the cost of food is decoupled from the cost of labor. So farm hands being replaced by tractors helped all of society by giving us cheaper food, and all of society would have been harmed if taxes had been instituted to prevent tractors from becoming commonplace.

Are the workers harmed when their jobs are replaced by AI? Yes of course. But society itself is helped and so all of society should bear the costs of helping the workers. We should of course offer unemployment benefits and job retraining to those affected. We should not let them go by the wayside the way we did to blue collar factory workers in the 20th century.

But neither should we shoot society in the foot by blocking technological progress that will help all of us. AI replacing jobs will mean products will become cheaper relative to wages, just as what happened with food. A lot of people also spread nonsense that unemployment will skyrocket as the displaced workers can’t find other jobs. They misunderstand economics, there will always be demand for more jobs. The price of some goods will decrease thanks to AI, but that means that people can buy more of those goods or buy more of others goods that they put off buying because they were forced to choose and only had so much money. As prices fall, demand will rise, raising demand for labors in other areas, and a new equilibrium will be reached. Those jobs lost due to AI don’t mean the workers will be forever jobless, any more than 35% of the population displaced by tractors meant that unemployment skyrocketed in the 20th century. Time and time and time again technology has replaced the jobs of workers, and the workers have found new jobs. It will happen again with AI.

Socialism Betrayed: Racist Great Man theory of history strikes again

There was some mid historian who once said: “The history of modern Europe can be defined by 3 men: Napoleon, Lenin, and Hitler.” This plithy remark sums up much about the “great man” theory of history.

For those who don’t know, the great man theory believes that history is moved not by economic or societal or any large scale forces, but by the actions of individuals, the “great men” (almost never women). This theory opines that it was Napoleon, whose conquests spread republicanism throughout Europe and whose terrorizing of European monarchs lead to the Concert of Europe, it was this Napoleon who defined the course of the 19th century. And in just the same way, Lenin and Hitler in their own ways defined the course of the 20th century, pulling Europe in their directions of communism or fascism, remaking the modern world through their life and death. NATO and the Warsaw pact, whose presence defined Europe for half a century, came about because of Hitler. And Leninist communism, which defined the ideological struggle between East and West, came about obviously due to Lenin.

This great man theory has been attacked by much better historians than I, but I want to focus right now on how it completely invalidates the role of any individual in society except the Great Man himself. Napoleon without an army to command and a state to lead is nothing, and yet his soldiers, his bureaucrats, and the entire nation he inherited are meaningless in the great man theory of history. And the revolutions which toppled the monarchy and allowed Napoleon to begin his rise were not the actions of solitary great men, but a great mass movement of the French people as a whole. It is likely that even if Napoleon had never existed, the conflict between revolutionary republicanism and monarchism which defined much of his legacy would still have happened. And if Lenin had not existed, the conflict between capitalism and communism would likely still have been present.

I’m reading “Socialism Betrayed” by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny and it’s startling how in the very first pages of the book, they define their thesis that the great man theory is true and the people of society do not matter.

The collapse of the Soviet Union did not occur because of an internal economic crisis or popular uprising. It occurred because of the reforms initiated at the top by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and its General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev

Socialism Betrayed

Really?! It didn’t happen because of nationalist movements among the subjugated peoples of the USSR, like the Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians? It didn’t happen because of mass movements which defined the collapse of every other Warsaw Pact nation in Europe? It didn’t happen because of the well-documented shortages and flailing USSR economy propped up almost entirely by oil and gas money? How easy it is to do history when you can define your villain and ignore all context!

I can already tell that this book will be dumb. Real dumb. Probably as bad as “The End of Growth” for how much it will ignore the facts to suit and opinion. Why are all the dumbest books I read the anti-capitalist ones?

“Market Capitulation” is a circular argument

Will the market recover in the new year? Or do we still have a ways to go? Bears online have been going on and on about “capitulation” as in “nothing will change until we finally have capitulation.” Capitulation in normal terms means surrender, so in financial terms it means the point where investors finally give up holding and sell their shares at a loss. According to Investopedia capitulation is also the point where the investment hits its bottom. Prima facia this is a circular argument, “we won’t hit the bottom until we’ve reached the bottom” is another way to phrase it. But even dumber, this is a backwards looking argument that cannot be used for predictions. Over the year of 2022, $SPY (a popular ETF that tracks the performance of the S&P 500) hit it’s 52 week low in November at 348$ per share (it currently trades at 382$). Who’s to say that that wasn’t the capitulation, and it won’t go below that? When the S&P500 hit 666 in 2009, that was the bottom of the bear market, yet many people still didn’t believe it, expecting that there was still more pain to endure. It wasn’t until a while later that we realized no, that really was the bottom, there’s no more “capitulation” after that. So I don’t put any stock in people talking about “market capitulation.”

Interpretatio graeca for Chinese myths and legends

I’ve been reading an interesting book from 1931. It discusses the motifs and references used in Chinese art, highlighting the Taoist, Confucian, and Buddhist stories that many of them derive from. However the book has a problem in that the authors were clearly trying to relate every Chinese story back to the stories they were more familiar with, mainly Indian Buddhist stories but also Roman/Greek ones as well. The Romans used to do this all the time, they called it “interpretatio graeca.” The Romans figured that every god or goddess in every culture was merely a manifestation of a god they were already familiar with, so they would “interpret” foreign gods as being the same or similar to their Roman/Greek gods. So Ra, the chief god of the Egyptians, got conflated with Apollo in Roman writings because since they shared a sun motif they must be identical, right? But Ra was not the same as Apollo, and Chinese myths are not the same as Indian myths, yet the authors of this book keep conflating the two and interpreting Chinese myths through a lens of Indian myths.

The book itself is called Outlines of Chinese Symbolism & Art Motives (sic) by C.A.S. Williams. In many respects it works well as an overview of the history and stories that make up a lot of Chinese art, and a primer into Chinese art culture. And yet it falls into this trap again and again of trying to interpret everything unfamiliar through the lens of the familiar. I understand perhaps that for the reader this can make things easier, saying that “This god is the king of the gods, he rules the sky and causes lightning to happen” may be harder to remember than saying “he’s like Zeus,” but saying “he’s like Zeus” brings a bunch of inaccurate assumptions that really aren’t true to what the Chinese sky god is actually like.

I wonder if this is in part because of out-dated theories in comparative religion. There was a vibe for a time of assuming that all myths and legends were just borrowed or stolen from earlier cultures. Jupiter and Zeus weren’t an original idea, they must have been borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from some previous culture that had a sky god wielding thunderbolts and ruling the other gods. The theory went on to say that every single sky-god in history was just a borrowing of a borrowing from an “original” sky god that was dreamed up 10,000 years ago. But the other option is to realize that “sky god causes thunder” is an easy thing for different people to come up with independently. Assuming that every myth in history was borrowed from somewhere else is also how you got inaccurate claims that for example “Jesus was just re-branded Mithra” and other ahistorical nonsense. It’s a very human feeling to want to related everything back to something you already know well, but it doesn’t lead to good history and so it should not be a feeling used in Academic writing.

Still, for a book from 1931 Outlines is surprisingly good, I enjoy being able to read the characters and phrases it writes in original Chinese, and learning the meaning behind some of them with it’s usually accurate descriptions of etymology. The descriptions of myth and stories generally seem accurate and the nonstop conflations with Indian myths can be ignored. I got this for 6$ at a used book store and I think it was worth the money.

Yes it’s OK that J Powell killed your puts

I’ve been trawling through old internet posts, and I found something interesting from March 2020. I won’t quote it directly but the gist was this:

I knew the market would crash due to Coronavirus, now that rat bastard J Powell comes in and pumps the market with free money, killing all my puts. What the fuck is this? Are you going to buy my puts from me now since they’re *distressed assets*?

As should be obvious this comes from the time when the Federal Reserve announced they would take every possible measure, including buying “distressed assets” in order to maintain liquidity in the market. Obviously anyone who was hoping a liquidity crisis would create a market crash was SOL, but for the good of the nation as a whole it’s better that our economy keeps chugging than a few disaster capitalists make it rich.

But it does raise a somewhat unfortunate truth: the Federal Reserve mostly buys up the assets of rich institutions that don’t need the help. The Fed buying someone’s underwater mortgage doesn’t actually help them, they’re still underwater and in debt, but it does help the bank that wrote the mortgage and is now facing a loss. The bank gets to offload the “distressed asset” (ie bad loan) and go use that money to make more money, while the mortgage owner just gets a new person they have to pay. It’s genuinely true that the Fed gives the greatest help to those already wealthy, and those of us not wealthy have to live with the consequences. Although all of us are helped in a way by the Fed maintaining liquidity in the economy, we aren’t helped to nearly the same extent as the banks that get to offload their bad decisions onto the government. I think it’s good that the Fed maintains liquidity, but I think there need to be more strings attached, demanding equity in exchange for liquidity would be a very fair trade in my book. And if banks don’t want the Government to own a percentage of them, then they can just refuse the free money.

The End of Growth part 5: How much more improvement is possible?

As I continue The End of Growth by Richard Heinberg, I’m struck most of all by his lack of creativity. When thinking about the future, most of us should be able to conjure up some ideas of how the world could be a modestly better place to live. Cars will become electric so no more filling up with gas, telework will get more common and we can all work from home, over 400 clinical trials are currently trials are currently studying Alzheimer’s disease, maybe one of them will cure it. These are all things that could change our society for the better and would almost contribute to economic growth. More efficient cars mean transportation is cheaper and so people can partake in more of it, in a very real way the supply of transportation will be increased, leading to an increase in GDP and a decrease in prices. And this is true of pretty much all technological advancements, technology is supposed to be deflationary, growing our economy while reducing prices. Yes Richard Heinberg doesn’t really see how technology could ever improve our lives from his lofty vantage point of 2011

We may be able to further improve the functionality of the Microsoft Office software package, the speed of transactions on the computer, computer storage capacity, or the number of sites available on the internet. Yet on many of these development trajectories we will face a point when the value of yet another improvement will be lower than its cost to the consumer

Yeah let me stop you right there Rick. If the cost is greater than the utility, the the product is unprofitable and it fails. Like the Nimslo Camera or the Quibi streaming platform, the world of tech is littered with big fails where product designers make something that consumers don’t buy. Yet here’s the secret Rick, if people do buy it then it is adding value to their lives greater than the price they pay for it. Richard Heinberg wants to paint a picture where our ever improving technology isn’t actually bringing any net good to consumers, yet by definition it IS otherwise the consumers just wouldn’t buy it. Consumers aren’t brainwashed automatons (as much as marketers wish they were) you can’t force them to buy something they don’t want. And consumers over the years have proven very willing to turn up their nose at goods and services which bring them less value than what they cost.

He continues:

At this point, further product “improvements” will be driven almost solely by aesthetic considerations […] for many consumer products this stage was reached decades ago.

Damn Rick, you’re right, the only reason people buy iPhones instead of old rotary-dialers is because of the aesthetics, not because you can access the whole world at the touch of a screen. And TVs, who needs a big plasma TV? Hell life was better in black and white anyway! And don’t get me started on ovens, pots, and dishware, sure these modern fancy kitchen appliances are less likely to burn your house down or leach carcinogens into your food, but is that really worth the cost?

If it sounds like I’m mocking Richard Heinberg it’s because I am. I diagnose him with a terminal lack of creativity, and an inability to see the improvements in life happening all around him. Every year consumer products, not just our electronics but our cookware, our houseware, our vehicles, they all continue to improve and become more safe, more efficient, and more useful. But Rick can’t understand why Microsoft Office became a subscription service and so questions whether technological improvement is even possible. Here’s a thought Rick: maybe you aren’t the target market for improving technology? Maybe you’d be happier with a typewriter and a sundial and thus don’t represent the average consumer? I can tell you that as a scientist, modern Microsoft Office is WAY better for me than what we had a decade ago. Since all my programs and files are on the cloud, I can sit down at any computer anywhere in the world and do my work. I don’t need to lug a PC everywhere I go, I can sit down at any PC and get to work. I can also collaborate easily with people anywhere on earth because all our files are in the cloud so we can work on them together instead of editing on our local machines and then sending versions back and forth through email.

My job has become immeasurably easier since Richard Heinberg wrote his book in 2011, the increased utility from technological advances computer software, computer hardware, and internet communication have made me more productive and a hell of a lot more happy. Technology has worked great for me and I’m glad to pay for the privilege of it. Rick can stick to his sundials if he really thinks technology peaked in the past.