Category: Uncategorized

An Obvious Solution

There is an easy and obvious way to simultaneously reduce both carbon emissions and food consumption by New York City residents:

New York City will track the carbon footprint of residents’ food consumption as part of a sweeping initiative to decrease the city’s carbon emissions from food by a third this year, Mayor Eric Adams revealed on Monday at an event for the Mayor’s Office of Climate and Environmental Justice. 

About a fifth of New York’s greenhouse gas emissions come from household food consumption, Adams told reporters, blaming much of that total on meat and dairy. Household food consumption is supposedly the third largest contributor to city emissions totals, trailing only buildings and transportation. 

The Mayor’s Office of Food Policy has ordered city agencies to reduce their food consumption by 33% by 2030, and Adams has asked private corporations to cut their own emissions by 25% by 2030, insisting New Yorkers’ wasteful eating habits cannot continue without imperiling the planet.

“It is easy to talk about emissions that are coming from vehicles and how it impacts our carbon footprint,” he said. “But now we have to talk about beef.” City officials urged New Yorkers to put down the burgers and pick up vegetables and beans.

The household consumption carbon footprint tracker will be viewable on the same website as the city’s breakdown of its annual greenhouse gas totals, which also includes data on producing consumer goods and using professional services. 

Sooner or later, the Satanists always resort to starvation. It’s less confrontational, and therefore, less risky than war. This is why it’s important to start taking steps to secure your family’s food supply now.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Failure of the Materialist Model

Those who blame every form of evil and insanity on “corporate greed” will find it very difficult to explain why Clown World is so willing to sacrifice the US and European economies and destroy corporate profits on behalf of Ukraine and Taiwan:

President Joe Biden will stop at nothing to protect America against security threats posed by China, even if it means damaging the US economy, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has claimed.

“National security is of paramount importance in our relationship with China,” Yellen said during a speech in Washington in Wednesday. She gave the example of blocking China from obtaining certain technologies, adding, “We will not compromise on these concerns, even when they force trade-offs with our economic interests.”

It’s evident that China and Russia are leading the charge against Clown World’s satanic hegemony, and that more and more countries are showing signs of following their lead. This is a spiritual war between the global satanists and the nations, not an economic war between rival sets of materialists, which is why all of the secular and materialist analysts are completely off every time they make a prediction or offer an explanation for why things are happening.

DISCUSS ON SG

There is No Thucydides Trap

And WWIII has already begun, so Ron Unz is incorrect to imagine that the lunacies of the neocons have saved the USA from the inevitable war with China et al.

The reality is that over the last year the Neocon-orchestrated war against Russia has collapsed any American hopes of forming a strong anti-China coalition.

For generations, India has had a troubled relationship with China and just a couple of years ago a bitter border skirmish had prompted a national ban on TikTok. But India and Russia had been strong allies throughout the Cold War and most of India’s military equipment is still Russian, while it has also benefitted from a very lucrative trade in refining and selling sanctioned Russian oil. So India has now clearly moved towards the Russia-China bloc.

In recent years, China has become the largest market for Saudi oil, while Russia is the other leading member of the crucial OPEC+ cartel. With both those countries joined together in a tight embrace, a Saudi shift away from its longstanding American alliance was hardly so surprising, but it still generated shockwaves.

Japan’s energy needs have led it to begin importing Russian oil despite the Western campaign of sanctions, so even our strongest ally in the Far East may be starting to reconsider its options.

In his 2014 analysis, Mearsheimer had logically presented Russia, India, and Japan as the three most important members of the balancing coalition that America would create against China, but we have now lost two or possibly all three of those countries.

The First World War lasted so long and cost so many millions of lives because the two contending coalitions were evenly matched, with the rising power of Germany so immensely strong that an alliance of the next three European powers—Britain, Russia, and France—could barely fight it to a draw over four years, and only American intervention finally turned the tide at the end. As Niall Ferguson cogently argued in The Pity of War, a swift German victory would have essentially resulted in the creation of the EU a century earlier and with negligible bloodshed.

But if the British government of the time had been so mad as to deliberately provoke a conflict with Russia on the eve of that war, thereby driving the Czar into the arms of his German cousin, the resulting realignment would have ensured a quick victory for the Kaiser, or more likely a German-led coalition too strong to even be opposed.

As envisioned by Mearsheimer, an America allied with Russia, India, Japan, and the NATO countries would have constituted a better than even global match for China, thereby allowing a highly aggressive American policy in the South China Sea. But Neocon blunders have now produced an entirely different correlation of forces, one so unfavorable to our own country that any armed conflict has become much less likely.

In his book, Allison considered a long list of geopolitical transitions over the last 500 years, and one of the few that avoided any bloodshed occurred when American power surpassed that of Britain early in the twentieth century. As he tells the story, by the time the British government considered challenging American dominance in the Western Hemisphere, our country had already grown too powerful to resist and their military leaders vetoed the idea. Lord Salisbury, the British Prime Minister, later wistfully reflected that if his country had intervened in the Civil War decades earlier and helped split the U.S. into rival, hostile nations, matters might have later played out very differently.

In similar manner, I think the developments of the last year have fostered the growth of a China-aligned global coalition far too powerful for America to directly confront, with even our subservient military leaders probably recognizing that reality.

Ron Unz is a smart and reasonably well-read individual. But, first of all, there is no such thing as a “Thucydides Trap”. It’s nothing more than a term coined by a Clown World pseudointellectual designed to capture the media’s attention and make other pseudos feel smart when stating the obvious, and it doesn’t even make sense, as anyone who compares the positions of Athens-Sparta to USA-China will immediately recognize.

“The front of the paperback edition was packed with a remarkable ten pages of glowing endorsements by a long list of the West’s most prestigious public figures and intellectuals, ranging from Joe Biden to Henry Kissinger to Gen. David Petraeus to Klaus Schwab.”

The “Thucydides Trap” is just another form of historical squid ink meant to obscure the observable patterns of the Empire That Never Ended from those capable of recognizing them. The only utility of the term is that one knows better than to take seriously anyone using it.

Second, China has been at war with the USA since 1999. It has been at war with Clown World since 2015. The fact that this war has been “unrestricted”, to use the Chinese word, rather than “hot” is irrelevant with regards to the possibility that the war might be avoided. But war that has already begun cannot, by definition, be avoided.

The historical truth is that empires always end. But other than a vague sense of discomfort, anomie, and being past the peak glory days, the citizens of the empire seldom realize that the imperial age has ended until it is long gone.

DISCUSS ON SG

The War on Clown World

One side bans wickedness. The other side bans any insufficient enthusiasm for wickedness. It’s not really that hard to determine who the good guys are, and who the evil servants of Satan are:

Russian media watchdog Roskomnadzor officially approved on Wednesday an expanded set of criteria for what is to be considered ‘LGBTQ propaganda’, which can be grounds to block access to websites.

This comes after the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Communications issued an order to broaden and specify the definitions of LGBTQ propaganda and pedophilia online.

The new set of norms will come into effect on September 1, and will be valid for the next six years, according to the document, which was published on Russia’s official internet portal of legal information.

Under the order, Roskomnadzor will be authorized to block access to websites that feature content depicting children imitating or taking part in sexual activities, child genitalia in a sexual context, information about obtaining, creating, or sharing child pornography, as well as content aimed at provoking sexual attraction towards children or justifying sexual relations with minors.

In case you don’t understand why I am very, very pleased to be among the Unauthorized, all I can say is that if you’re not persona non grata among the wicked of Clown World, you really need to contemplate whether you are truly on the side of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True or not.

Because Clown World is at war with everything good, everything beautiful, and everything true.

DISCUSS ON SG

Losing Their Free Trade Religion

The Tree of Woe contemplates the fallacies of free trade:

Fletcher’s assault on Fortress Free Trade consists of five interlocking theoretical arguments and one empirical argument. He begins by undermining the assumptions at the foundation of Ricardian free trade theory.

Labor and Capital are Mobile. Go back and re-read the examples above. Did you notice what was excluded from the hypothetical? The movement of capital and labor. That’s because Ricardian free trade theory simply assumes as given that labor and capital are immobile. All competition is via industry or product.

But this is not the case nowadays. Nowadays both labor and capital can move. The result of that is that investment capital and labor pursue absolute, rather than comparative, advantage. And with capital and labor mobility, absolute advantage trumps and gains from trade evaporate.

Let’s imagine that the advantage that accrues to British labor is due to better capital investment: each man-hour of labor is more productive in Britain because it has better factories. Let’s also imagine that Britain and Portugal have foolishly agreed to enter some sort of “union” which allowed their workers to work and live in either country. Labor is now mobile so each worker can move where the best jobs are available. Since labor wages tend to increase when productivity increases, the Portuguese workers will realize they can earn more and tend to move to Britain. The outcome is not happy Portuguese vineyard workers, but Portuguese immigrants trying to get jobs in British wool and wine factories.2

Now let’s imagine that the advantage that accrues to British labor is due to the fact that hourly wages are lower and working hours longer than in Portugal. The factories are equally the same, but you can get 60 hours of British labor for the cost of 35 hours of Portuguese labor. Let’s also imagine that Britain and Portugal have deepened their union such that financial investments can flow freely between the countries. Obviously, what happens is that the Portuguese investors invest their capital in Great Britain, where they can take advantage of the cheap labor. Many high-paying Portuguese jobs vanish as the capital flight causes the factories to shutter. This is, of course, exactly what has happened between the US and China.

Capital is Not Fungible. Go back and re-read the examples again. Did you notice that I said “each has enough factories to let 500 workers work in each industry” initially, but that when they began trading, “each specialize in the area where they have absolute advantage, changing their factories to the new type they need.” I didn’t allocate any cost to this switch — there was no depreciation of the old factories, no loss of investment, no scrap metal yards filled with wool-spinning machines the Portuguese no longer need, etc. Ricardian free trade theory just assumes that capital is fungible – an investment into wool factories is convertible into an investment into wine factories.

In the real world, we know this is not true. If it were true, the entire globe wouldn’t be fixated on Taiwan’s chip manufacturing factories. Capital is very much not fungible. To the extent that capital is not fungible, it means there are deadweight costs to free trade, in the form of shuttered factories, depreciated machines, and so on, that Ricardian theory does not take into account.

An orthodox Ricardian will reply to this criticism by asserting that in the long run capital is fungible and that the long term gains from trade will more than make up for the short-run costs. This argument will be accompanied by a complex econometric paper that uses 10 pages of math written in Greek symbols that says exactly the same thing as I just said in one sentence.

Not so fast, mathemagicians. Fletcher has another howitzer to fire at Fortress Free Trade, and it demonstrates why the infungibility of capital is a much bigger deal than the orthodoxy wants to admit.

Read the whole thing, particularly if you don’t fully understand why free trade doesn’t work. My Free Trade Efficiency and Labor Mobility critique is mentioned, but nothing more since it isn’t actually relevant to Fletcher’s critique of David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage. However, I do think it would be easier for people to understand if someone else were to explain it, as most people don’t appear to understand the real consequences if free trade were to actually work as advertised.

DISCUSS ON SG

Nothing Works Anymore So Plan Accordingly

It’s perspicacious, so read the whole thing. On a related note, I’ve literally been working on finding a solution for the shipping problem for Europe all morning. And the steps we are probably going to have to take to resolve the issues involved are absurd to the point of bordering on the comedic. The good news is that should we ever feel the need to branch out into trafficking various forms of contraband, we will have a comprehensive network in place.

There’s a cocktail party version of the efficient markets hypothesis I frequently hear that’s basically, “markets enforce efficiency, so it’s not possible that a company can have some major inefficiency and survive”. We’ve previously discussed Marc Andreessen’s quote that tech hiring can’t be inefficient here and here:

Let’s launch right into it. I think the critique that Silicon Valley companies are deliberately, systematically discriminatory is incorrect, and there are two reasons to believe that that’s the case. … No. 2, our companies are desperate for talent. Desperate. Our companies are dying for talent. They’re like lying on the beach gasping because they can’t get enough talented people in for these jobs. The motivation to go find talent wherever it is unbelievably high.

Variants of this idea that I frequently hear engineers and VCs repeat involve companies being efficient and/or products being basically as good as possible because, if it were possible for them to be better, someone would’ve outcompeted them and done it already.

There’s a vague plausibility to that kind of statement, which is why it’s a debate I’ve often heard come up in casual conversation, where one person will point out some obvious company inefficiency or product error and someone else will respond that, if it’s so obvious, someone at the company would have fixed the issue or another company would’ve come along and won based on being more efficient or better. Talking purely abstractly, it’s hard to settle the debate, but things are clearer if we look at some specifics, as in the two examples above about hiring, where we can observe that, whatever abstract arguments people make, inefficiencies persisted for decades.

When it comes to buying products and services, at a personal level, most people I know who’ve checked the work of people they’ve hired for things like home renovation or accounting have found grievous errors in the work. Although it’s possible to find people who don’t do shoddy work, it’s generally difficult for someone who isn’t an expert in the field to determine if someone is going to do shoddy work in the field. You can try to get better quality by paying more, but once you get out of the very bottom end of the market, it’s frequently unclear how to trade money for quality, e.g., my friends and colleagues who’ve gone with large, brand name, accounting firms have paid much more than people who go with small, local, accountants and gotten a higher error rate; as a strategy, trying expensive local accountants hasn’t really fared much better. The good accountants are typically somewhat expensive, but they’re generally not charging the highest rates and only a small percentage of somewhat expensive accountants are good.

More generally, in many markets, consumers are uninformed and it’s fairly difficult to figure out which products are even half decent, let alone good. When people happen to choose a product or service that’s right for them, it’s often for the wrong reasons. For example, in my social circles, there have been two waves of people migrating from iPhones to Android phones over the past few years. Both waves happened due to Apple PR snafus which caused a lot of people to think that iPhones were terrible at something when, in fact, they were better at that thing than Android phones. Luckily, iPhones aren’t strictly superior to Android phones and many people who switched got a device that was better for them because they were previously using an iPhone due to good Apple PR, causing their errors to cancel out. But, when people are mostly making decisions off of marketing and PR and don’t have access to good information, there’s no particular reason to think that a product being generally better or even strictly superior will result in that winning and the worse product losing. In capital markets, we don’t need all that many informed participants to think that some form of the efficient market hypothesis holds ensuring “prices reflect all available information”. It’s a truism that published results about market inefficiencies stop being true the moment they’re published because people exploit the inefficiency until it disappears.

But as we also saw, individual firms exploiting mispriced labor have a limited demand for labor and inefficiencies can persist for decades because the firms that are acting on “all available information” don’t buy enough labor to move the price of mispriced people to where it would be if most or all firms were acting rationally.

In the abstract, it seems that, with products and services, inefficiencies should also be able to persist for a long time since, similarly, there also isn’t a mechanism that allows actors in the system to exploit the inefficiency in a way that directly converts money into more money, and sometimes there isn’t really even a mechanism to make almost any money at all. For example, if you observe that it’s silly for people to move from iPhones to Android phones because they think that Apple is engaging in nefarious planned obsolescence when Android devices generally become obsolete more quickly, due to a combination of iPhones getting updates for longer and iPhones being faster at every price point they compete at, allowing the phone to be used on bloated sites for longer, you can’t really make money off of this observation. This is unlike a mispriced asset that you can buy derivatives of to make money (in expectation).

A common suggestion to the problem of not knowing what product or service is good is to ask an expert in the field or a credentialed person, but this often fails as well. For example, a friend of mine had trouble sleeping because his window air conditioner was loud and would wake him up when it turned on. He asked a trusted friend of his who works on air conditioners if this could be improved by getting a newer air conditioner and his friend said “no; air conditioners are basically all the same”. But any consumer who’s compared items with motors in them would immediately know that this is false. Engineers have gotten much better at producing quieter devices when holding power and cost constant. My friend eventually bought a newer, quieter, air conditioner, which solved his sleep problem, but he had the problem for longer than he needed to because he assumed that someone whose job it is to work on air conditioners would give him non-terrible advice about air conditioners. If my friend were an expert on air conditioners or had compared the noise levels of otherwise comparable consumer products over time, he could’ve figured out that he shouldn’t trust his friend, but if he had that level of expertise, he wouldn’t have needed advice in the first place.

So far, we’ve looked at the difficulty of getting the right product or service at a personal level, but this problem also exists at the firm level and is often worse because the markets tend to be thinner, with fewer products available as well as opaque, “call us” pricing. Some commonly repeated advice is that firms should focus on their “core competencies” and outsource everything else (e.g., Joel Spolsky, Gene Kim, Will Larson, Camille Fournier, etc., all say this), but if we look mid-sized tech companies, we can see that they often need to have in-house expertise that’s far outside what anyone would consider their core competency unless, e.g., every social media company has kernel expertise as a core competency. In principle, firms can outsource this kind of work, but people I know who’ve relied on outsourcing, e.g., kernel expertise to consultants or application engineers on a support contract, have been very unhappy with the results compared to what they can get by hiring dedicated engineers, both in absolute terms (support frequently doesn’t come up with a satisfactory resolution in weeks or months, even when it’s one a good engineer could solve in days) and for the money (despite engineers being expensive, large support contracts can often cost more than an engineer while delivering worse service than an engineer).

This problem exists not only for support but also for products a company could buy instead of build. For example, Ben Kuhn, the CTO of Wave, has a Twitter thread about some of the issues we’ve run into at Wave, with a couple of followups. Ben now believes that one of the big mistakes he made as CTO was not putting much more effort into vendor selection, even when the decision appeared to be a slam dunk, and more strongly considering moving many systems to custom in-house versions sooner. Even after selecting the consensus best product in the space from the leading (as in largest and most respected) firm, and using the main offering the company has, the product often not only doesn’t work but, by design, can’t work.

For example, we tried “buy” instead of “build” for a product that syncs data from Postgres to Snowflake. Syncing from Postrgres is the main offering (as in the offering with the most customers) from a leading data sync company, and we found that it would lose data, duplicate data, and corrupt data. After digging into it, it turns out that the product has a design that, among other issues, relies on the data source being able to seek backwards on its changelog. But Postgres throws changelogs away once they’re consumed, so the Postgres data source can’t support this operation. When their product attempts to do this and the operation fails, we end up with the sync getting “stuck”, needing manual intervention from the vendor’s operator and/or data loss. Since our data is still on Postgres, it’s possible to recover from this by doing a full resync, but the data sync product tops out at 5MB/s for reasons that appear to be unknown to them, so a full resync can take days even on databases that aren’t all that large. Resyncs will also silently drop and corrupt data, so multiple cycles of full resyncs followed by data integrity checks are sometimes necessary to recover from data corruption, which can take weeks. Despite being widely recommended and the leading product in the space, the product has a number of major design flaws that mean that it literally cannot work.

This isn’t just an issue that impacts tech companies; we see this across many different industries. For example, any company that wants to mail items to customers has to either implement shipping themselves or deal with the fallout of having unreliable shipping.

I wish I’d read this six months ago. But at least it confirms the necessity, and the wisdom, of setting up our own shipping centers.

DISCUSS ON SG