Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Author: Ian Welsh Page 4 of 422

Is It More Fun To Be Evil Than Good?

By

On October 7, 2025

Comments

It’s our annual fundraiser. We’ve raised a little over $5,400 from 37 people in the last eight days, out of our goal of $12,500. These donations help us cover the changeover of hegemony from America to China, environmental collapse, internal US fascism, what a better society would look like, Gaza, AI, the coming stock market crash and various other issues. It’d be great if you can help out (please don’t donate if your financial situation is dire.) You can Subscribe or Donate here or contact me at ianatfld-at-gmail-dot-com if you need another way to donate (mail, usually. A lot of cash apps don’t work in Canada.)

 

Fairly often I run across the following piece of reasoning:

There must be punishment, including punishment by God, because otherwise who wouldn’t want the fun of being evil?

This occasions some side-eye and sidling away from the person in question. “Uh, if you think evil is fun and are only good because of fear of punishment, something is wrong with you. And you’re dangerous if you ever think you can ‘get away with it.'”

Now this is a difficult topic because it requires us to talk about the fact that doing some types of evil IS fun for some people. Do I have to explain that rapists often enjoy raping someone?

Many years ago, and I can’t find it now, I read an excerpt from a book whose author had been a torturer during the Lebanese civil war. He wrote, quite seriously, that it had destroyed him because torturing someone was the most ecstatic experience, way better than sex, and now that he didn’t torture anymore, the entire world was gray and lacked any pleasure for him.

Power isn’t just an aphrodisiac, it’s an amplifier… Making someone else do what you want them to do is experienced by many people as very pleasurable. That they don’t want to, and force was used, makes people feel powerful and potent. Trickery, convincing people to do something that is against their interest, is likewise experienced as a rush. Con artists (including the really big ones like politicians, Obama, for example) revel in their ability to manipulate people, then betray them.

The human condition is weak. We are at the mercy of fate, luck, our bodies, and other people from the moment we’re born. As children, this is especially the case. Experiencing power, feeling that we aren’t weak, is, for many, the ultimate rush and the ultimate relief from fear.

Hurting people for your own benefit, successfully, is to experience power.

Almost every CEO and executive and almost all politicians experience this repeatedly. And, as many studies have shown, powerful people lose empathy. So they experience the upside of their evil without feeling the suffering of their victims.

It’s not just that he doesn’t care that they die, but that forcing them to die for him is a rush.

Now you don’t have to be super powerful to get this. Find someone weaker, and use your power against them. Weaker is relative: they could be physically weaker (your wife and kids, perhaps?) or they could be stupider (be a con artist) or they could just lack will and you have plenty (see henpecked husbands who are physically stronger and earn more money) or you could have managed to get into a management position and they need their jobs and have to do what you say, or else.

There are millions of variations: no matter how weak you are, there’s someone weaker, and you too can experience the retail version of the wholesale pleasure offered to a CEO or high-ranking politician. You’ll never get the full thrills of torture and murder of a George W. Bush or Netanyahu, but you can taste from the same sweet swill.

Evil is fun. And that leaves aside that the most evil people tend to wind up stinking rich as a side benefit.

I’ve made the case for evil, and I’ve done my best to make the strongest case I can, but I personally think you’re a fool to accept it or choose evil.

The problem with evil is that, as Tolkien pointed out, it consumes itself. You can never trust another person who is evil, not completely. For now, it may be in their self-interest to help you or at least leave you alone, but if you’re ever vulnerable and there’s enough at stake, well, they’ll come for you. You must always be strong, or you must be subordinate to someone stronger than you. That person will only protect you as long as it is in their self-interest. If you need to be sacrificed, so be it.

Safety requires good. The obvious solution is to be a free rider. Be evil, but live among good people. But, eventually, they figure out you’re evil, and the more people try to free ride, the more a society becomes evil, till the good people, even if not a minority, are effectively powerless. (This is arguably where the US is. Probably a majority aren’t evil, but who cares? They have no power. Israel, on the other hand, is a country where something over 90% of the non-Palestinian population is evil. There is no reservoir of evil larger than a muddy puddle.)

But it’s not just safety. Evil people care only about others when it’s in their interest. If you’re good and live with good people, you know that when you’re sick, broken, scared, or down, someone will help.

This is, really, true freedom. The knowledge that someone is there to help when you need help means you can take risks and you can do what you want, so long as it doesn’t harm other people. If you’re in an evil society, you must always be sure to have sufficient power (money is secondary; it means nothing if you can’t protect it). Your effective freedom is vastly restricted.

But perhaps most important, as good as the exercise of power feels, most of the enjoyable emotions in life are oriented towards good. There’s nothing quite like the warm feeling of love. There’s nothing like true friendship, the feeling of safety it gives, and the playfulness it allows. And as for power, the power of a good community is massive. When a group comes together to do something because the members all want to, not out of fear, the feeling of being part of something larger than oneself is wonderful. (Everyone should take part in a barn raising to get a taste of this.)

The price of evil is fear. Of knowing that you’re always in danger. Perhaps you’ll be the alpha predator who “wins”, the Barack Obama or Trump (though he often seems unhappy), or the Bush Jr., but for every winner, for every aspirational evil mastermind, there are millions of predators who are sometimes the victimizer, and other days the victim. People who always have to worry about who’s coming for them next.

Of course, if you live in an evil society, many of the benefits are lost. But even there, good people find each other and create their own small groups, and even if it’s just you, there is a satisfaction in virtue that is very real. There is a peace in being good, and knowing one has red lines and, oddly, in knowing that there are things one will not do to stay alive: that there are depths one will not sink to.

In the end, evil is about wallowing in pleasures that always have sickness to them, that never fully satisfy. The ecstasy of torture or rape or killing the innocent is real enough, but there is a filth to it, which is why such people often wind up with nightmares and PTSD, despite being the powerful ones who did the evil.

Those who want evil, who think it is fun, often wake one day to find the filth they have wallowed in has consumed them.

Evil has its pleasures, but they are not worth what they cost.

(The next article in this series will argue that China has defeated the US in large part because it has been more good, or less evil, than America for quite some time.)

Open Thread

By

On October 4, 2025

Comments

Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.

Hegseth’s Speech and Fitness Standards For Soldiers

By

On October 2, 2025

Comments

I took the time to read a transcript of Secretary of War Hegseth’s speech to the gathered generals and admirals. To my surprise, I agreed with a lot of it, though not all. The crazy bits, especially combined with Trump’s statements, are the talk of domestic enemies and using the military against them.

But most of the speech is about standards. No beards, no slobs, and most of all, fitness standards:

Because war does not care if you’re a man or a woman. Neither does the enemy, nor does the weight of your rucksack, the size of an artillery round or the body weight of a casualty on the battlefield who must be carried. This — and I want to be very clear about this. This is not about preventing women from serving. We very much value the impact of female troops. Our female officers and NCOs are the absolute best in the world.

But when it comes to any job that requires physical power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be high and gender-neutral. If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is. If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it. That is not the intent, but it could be the result. So be it. It will also mean that weak men won’t qualify because we’re not playing games. This is combat. This is life or death.

And the thing is, I more or less agree with this.

But. (You knew there’d be a but.)

What fitness standards are really required?


The only major army, at war, to use a lot of women was the USSR. They weren’t allowed in all roles, but they were in some. Particularly famous were the snipers:

Roza was one of more than 2,000 female snipers trained and employed by the Soviets to put fear in the hearts of the invaders by striking thousands from the Germans’ “rations list.” Other women were even more deadly and more famous. Lyudmila Pavlichenko, for example, had 309 confirmed kills and was selected to go on a wartime goodwill tour of Allied countries that included a visit to Franklin Roosevelt’s White House.

The initial female snipers were individuals like Nina Petrova, who served as a nurse on the front, although she had been a physical education instructor who had trained marksmen before the war. At first, the Soviets had been reluctant to employ her as a sniper because of her sex and the fact that she was 48 years old.

But the nurse was persistent, got her hands on a sniper rifle, and eventually was given permission to “go hunting” in her free time. As her official kill tally mounted, she gained the go-ahead for further outings, and she began to teach frontline sniper courses.

Other units also set up similar frontline programs, and in March 1942, a Central School for Sniper Instructors was established in Veshnyaki near Moscow. Petrova, Pavlichenko, and other women on the front lines had already demonstrated their abilities and coolness under fire, so it was a fairly logical follow-through when the Soviet high command established a separate three-month-long women’s training program there in December 1942.

The Soviets thought that women made excellent snipers because they could handle cold better than men, and they were more patient and willing to wait for the right opportunities. The confirmed kill numbers on many of them were very high, in the hundreds, and there’s little question that unconfirmed kills were much higher.

That and other “decamping” events to the front lines led to further sanctions and an angry fit when a political commander refused to let her go on additional excursions. She was an adrenaline junkie who begged to go back on the front lines. “Some force draws me to the front lines,” she wrote. “I’m bored in the back. Some people say I just want to get back to the boys, but I don’t have anyone I know there. I want to see real war.”

In one frontline attack alone, Roza reportedly killed 54 Germans and captured three others. Those figures were not included in her official sniper tally but resulted in a front-page feature in a Moscow magazine. Her action prompted Soviet writer-propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg to “thank her 57 times over. She has saved the lives of thousands of Soviet people.”

I don’t have a strong view on this. I just suspect that there’s a sort of generalized misogyny at the heart of the MAGA movement, a resentment of women who “took our jobs” that will lead to the standards not actually reflecting the requirements of the field. Hell, I’m not even a fan of women in war (some latent chivalry from my upbringing, I suspect.)

It’s my annual fundraiser. We cover a lot of ground on this blog and those who read it regularly know what is going to happen before most who don’t: the end of American Empire, the end of dollar hegemony, that Russia was going to win the war, the new Hegemon China, and even minor things like Tesla’s oncoming collapse. It’d be great if you can help out (please don’t donate if your financial situation is dire.) You can Subscribe or Donate here or contact me at ian-at-fdl-at-gmail-dot-com if mail or another method would be better. (Most US cash apps do not work in Canada.)

The snipers carried two grenades. One was to be used against the enemy, the second to avoid capture by killing themselves and hopefully taking some Germans with them. If captured they could expect rape and torture. (Many looted a German pistol and saved the last bullet for themselves instead.)

That said, fairness requires that those who can do the job and want to, be allowed to. The only thing that matters in war is if you can do what needs to be done. How many air force technicians are going to be separated because they’re a bit too fat, say? Does it really matter if they are? With widespread recruitment issues, can you replace them? The US military letting in more women and so on wasn’t just about “woke” it was about fairly consistent problems meeting recruitment goals with people who weren’t criminals or morons or who have serious health issues. Is it better to have American women serving, or to offer non-citizens a route to citizenship in exchange for service? (Hire mercenaries, in effect?)

Not, of course, that the US military being high functioning is in almost anyone’s interest, including most Americans. After all, Trump has deployed troops against Americans and wants to deploy more, against his domestic enemies. Nor has America been “the good guys” in many wars. America losing its wars, historically would have been good nine times out of ten. (Fortunately Americans have become better and better at losing wars.) Hell, America’s currently helping the Israelis commit genocide and a carrier task force is currently steaming thru the Med, perhaps to attack Iran again.

So perhaps Hegseth’s reforms will just make America’s military even crappier. Let’s hope so.

The Next Big Crash Is On Its Way

By

On October 1, 2025

Comments

Ever since Greenspan took over the Fed and the 87 crash when they figured out their playbook, the US has only had unavoidable stock market crashes. The Fed is always there to juice markets higher and to jump in at the least sign of a normal (pre-Greenspan) market correction.

But sometimes the irrational stupidity overwhelms even the Fed, because they are both stupid and ideologically unwilling to ever force a correction. This happened twice: the dot-com boom and crash and the Mortgage backed security boom and crash (if we bundle shitty mortgages based on lies together, they become not shitty, because we’re pretending they aren’t all basically the same thing!)

Now we’re going to get the AI Boom crash. I’m well over 90% on this. The AI booms is in the “wildly stupid over-claiming” stage. It’s not that token based AI isn’t a real tech, or that it doesn’t have some uses, but the claims of it completely changing everything (replacing a third of the workforce, acting without human help to run things, being able to cure cancer and make huge theoretical breakthroughs) are obvious over-reaches. So far every academic study that comes in shows that AI isn’t even good at the one thing everyone anecdotally agreed it was good at: writing code. Right now it seems to mainly be a good way to cheat at university, to have a fake relationship, or to bypass Google’s shitty search (which is what I use it for.) It hallucinates, the hallucinations cannot be removed because they are integral to the tech, and the code it produces, even when it works, is a huge mess that will cause massive maintenance issues.

In addition:

  • Since it doesn’t actually mostly reason, it requires data sets bigger than all the data in the world if it is to keep improving;
  • If it uses the data it itself produces, it experiences model collapse.
  • None of the American AI companies make money per query. Every query costs more than they can charge.
  • It requires a vast build-out of energy and data centers, of the “over a trillion dollars” variety. There literally isn’t enough money to pay for OpenAI and Anthropic’s dreams, and there isn’t a product at the end of it that could pay back all that money.
  • About 40% of the US stock market is now based around NVidia and the AI companies.
  • NVidia has now invested in Open AI, so that they can turn around and buy more NVidia cards.
  • The Chinese offer an open source AI which is almost as good and with costs somewhere between one fifteenth and one-thirtieth as much, so that it might actually be profitable AND since it’s open source, Trump can’t have a mini-stroke and decide to cut you off at his whim.

It’s my annual fundraiser. This allows us to cover the changeover of hegemony from America to China, environmental collapse, internal US fascism, what a better society would look like, Gaza, AI, the coming stock market crash and various other issues. As of this writing we’ve raised about $2,700 out of a $12,500 goal, from over 25 people. It’d be great if you can help out (please don’t donate if your financial situation is dire.) You can Subscribe or Donate here or contact me at admin-at-ianwelsh-dot-net if you need another way to donate (mail, usually. A lot of cash apps don’t work in Canada.)

Throwing all this money at AI if it really was the epochal “tech to end all techs, the singularity, dude” that the tech-bros claim it is might make sense. But I don’t see the evidence that this is the case, and even if it is, why not use the Open Source Chinese variety?

In fact, my guess is that this version of AI, based on this model and this generation of chips, is not even as big a deal as the internet was. Everyone was right that the internet was going to be HUGE, they just over-invested before it was and before people knew who the winners (Google, Facebook, Amazon) were going to be.

But so far AI doesn’t even look as important as the internet, but the spend is way larger than the internet build-out of the turn of the millennium.

But even if AI turns out to be a HUGE deal, it’s going to crash out of this bubble and we’ll find out later who can make money doing what.

The Fed will paper the AI market crash over, making hundreds of billions or even a trillion out of thin air to save the rich from their own stupidity and greed. Again. But this will be the LAST crash the Fed will be able to save the capitalists from. The one after will either wipe the capitalists out, wipe out America, or both.

If You Use A VPN, You May Need To Turn It Off To Subscribe or Donate

By

On September 30, 2025

Comments

What is says in the title!

We’ve raised a little over $1,500 over the last day, from sixteen people, out of our goal of $12,500. This helps us cover the changeover of hegemony from America to China, environmental collapse, internal US fascism, what a better society would look like, Gaza, AI, the coming stock market crash and various other issues. It’d be great if you can help out (please don’t donate if your financial situation is dire.) You can Subscribe or Donate here or contact me at admin-at-ianwelsh-dot-net if you need another way to donate (mail, usually. A lot of cash apps don’t work in Canada.)

2025 Fundraiser

By

On September 29, 2025

Comments

This blog runs on reader subscriptions and donations. Reading it is free, and always will be, but it does take money to run the site and keep myself fed and sheltered. Every year (except one time when I was sick and forgot) I do an annual fundraiser, and the funds raised are what make the blog viable.

Over the last few years I’ve been writing mostly about the hegemonic changeover from America to China. Long predicted, this is still a rare event, happening only every century or so, and it’s fascinating to be living thru it. I still plan on covering it, but I think regular readers get the point.

What I plan on writing more about is what the future looks like, and what it takes to run a “good” society. We don’t have a lot of those right now, and putting down the markers for what is required to create one is important. Equally, we need to understand how good societies fail. As an example FDR created a much better America for Americans, but he left open some “windows of wealth” like taxing capital gains at much less than income. It took a while for the rich to turn into oligarchs by driving a tank thru this opening, but they managed it.

China before Xi was in vast danger of turning into an oligarchy. Corruption was rampant, and China was minting billionaires, and they were using their wealth to buy influence and power. Xi shut that down, hard. China avoided a trap which would have turned its rise, at best, into a Chinese Gilded Age and might well have derailed it entirely.

Many such traps come along, and sometimes countries recover before the harm is insoluble.

Sometimes they don’t.

So I’ll be writing more about such issues, about the future effects of climate change on governance and general life and so on.

We have two new writers, Sean Paul Kelley and Nat Wilson Turner. They cover issues I only touch on, Sean Paul is a trained historian, and former institutional broker at Morgan Stanley who has visited more countries than not–65 and counting, and Nate is good at the “bloggy” stuff, as well as (though he hasn’t written about it yet for us) the principles of ideology and how it determines history.

We’ll also make some serious predictions. Most of the big picture events I predicted over the last twenty years have either come to pass, or are in process now, like the rise of China, the fall of America, the immiseration of Americans, the rise of authoritarianism, undeniable climate change, the fall of Crimea, the 2008 financial collapse and so on. We’re due for another financial collapse, and I’ll discuss why, how it will most likely play out, why it’ll be the last one which can be “papered over” and put it in the context of the US’s demotion to regional great power.

In terms of fundraising goals, for every two thousand dollars we raised, I’ll write a long article on one of the “Laws of Heaven”, the principles which create and sustain good societies, in Machiavelli style dictums.

One of these is the “Law of the Predator”.

Anyone who will take what they want from someone weaker than them cannot be allowed to have any power.

Rules such as these, and “keep the rich poor” are foundational. When we don’t follow them, usually without realizing we are, our societies inevitably rot and turn into something hellish for the majority of people.

Readership is up a fair bit this year, even after removing bots. People want to read what is written here. But to write, money is, alas, necessary. I hope you will subscribe or donate. The goal is $12,500, the same as last year. If you’re personally in financial trouble, if food or shelter is an issue, please don’t give. If not, and you value this blog, please do.

SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE TO IAN’S 2025 FUNDRAISER

(Afterword. If you had a subscription and think it’s still running, please check. When credit cards change, the subscription ends. I always let people know, but email messages don’t always get thru. If you can’t use paypal to donate, let me know. Snail mail still works or if you’re Canadian, an Interac transfer. (Most US cash apps do not work in Canada. You can reach me at admin-at-ianwelsh-dot-net, about this or anything else.)

Chinese Companies Compete For Market Share & That’s Why Starbucks Is Toast

By

On September 27, 2025

Comments

Starbucks sells expensive sugared drinks, and some of them have coffee in them. It’s been very profitable and despite some declines, remains so. The CEO was paid about $96 million last year. He was brought in to “turn Starbucks around”, and his main moves have been towards returning Starbucks to its roots as a “third place”, which is to say, somewhere other than work or home where people spend time.

That’s a good idea, actually, because if all Starbucks sells is expensive drinks, which most people pick up, then it’s a lousy value proposition for consumers, especially for the mass of consumers who are seeing a lot of inflation and effectively decreasing wages. The average drink at Starbucks probably comes in around $5 and it’s easy to spend $7, and that’s just on the drink.

Now here’s the issue: American companies are most interested in profits. They want to make large net profits and pay their executives well, which they do by giving them stock options and in most cases juicing share prices by spending massive amounts on stock buybacks.

 

 

American companies are in the business of making whoever controls them rich. Sometimes they’re willing to make a long play and compete for market share, but generally ONLY if they think there’s a possibility of achieving a monopoly or oligopoly position. So there was tons of money for Uber & Lyft, because investors knew that in the end, they’d be able to reap monopoly profits, which they now are.

But in markets where there doesn’t seem to be that possibility, corporations are much less willing to compete aggressively for market share by beating the competitor on price. They prefer to compete in other ways: the third place, for example, or a product that is perceived as better and effectively “price clump”. If an upstart tries to break into an established industry they may briefly drop prices to keep them out, but that’s as far as they’ll go.

Now here’s the problem, Chinese companies compete aggressively for market share based on price. Starbucks used to be the player in the Chinese coffee house market. Then they had their coffee drunk by an upstart named Luckin. Luckin is opening about 10x as many stores as Starbucks. It has 16,000 stores to Starbucks 7,000, and its drinks, which include fancy ones, are about 30% cheaper. Starbucks definitely makes more per store, but Luckin makes more gross. There’s no “third place” about Luckin, they’re kiosks, you order your drink, usually thru your phone (which offers constant discounts) and pick it up.

Because they have massive scale, their unit costs are low, and they benefit from the usual “no one can beat the Chinese at scale” advantage. (Though Starbucks could have done the same, they just wanted to be a more luxury brand and get the extra profits.)

Gadallion goes into this in detail, if you want the nitty gritty, but this chart shows the speed of Luckin’s growth.

 

Now Luckin has come to America. The drinks are cheaper and Starbucks does a lot of pick up business. If you’re just going to pick up a drink, why not go to the cheaper alternative, assuming the drinks are about as good? And unlike China, American consumers are squeezed big time. (China’s 2nd and 3rd tier city consumers are doing well, Beijing and Shanghai consumers are currently under pressure from the housing bubble being smashed, but should recover in the next year or two.)

For now Starbucks has more stores worldwide than Luckin. But their unit costs are higher even now. If Luckin keeps expanding, and especially expanding in the US and S.E. Asia, Luckin’s unit costs are likely to keep decreasing.

It’s hard to see how this doesn’t end badly for Starbucks, unless they get Congress or Trump to intervene. There’s momentum with Starbucks: people are used to going there and keep doing so. But if there’s something cheaper, that’s about as good?

If they compete on price, they lose a lot of their profit margins and investors are already squealing about the minor drops they’ve recently experienced. If they don’t compete on price, Americans who are price sensitive and don’t need “the third place” move to them, and they lose massive amounts of volume. There’s certainly a niche and a fairly large one for “buy a drink and stay at the coffee shop to enjoy it”, and I suspect it’s pretty profitable, but it’s smaller than what Starbucks is right now, and what’s to stop Luckin, after it wins the price sensitive customers from opening “Luckin Luxury Cafes” or somesuch, offering actual premium drinks and comfy chairs and tables and laptop charging, and using their unit cost advantage to out compete the “third place” Starbucks?

This is a specific case of a general rule: Chinese companies want scale and compete on price. They’re like American businesses in the 50s and 60s. They offer value and they aren’t trying to maximize profits by maximizing prices, because they’re used to an economy which has actual price competition.

I used to spend a lot of time in Starbucks, because they had stores in book shops, and I’d buy a coffee and read books for a few hours every day. I’d still be interested in that sort of thing and I have some emotional fondness for Starbucks because of what are, for me, good memories.

But it’s hard to be sanguine about their future. The third place stuff is fine, but if they want to survive, they’d better start competing on price while they still have a size advantage.

Most US companies are in a far worse situation: they’re already smaller than their Chinese equivalents. They can’t compete on price, it’s not possible, because they don’t have scale economies and can’t get them. As China catches up in quality and in many industries surpasses, they’re toast unless protected from Chinese competition, usually by law, geography or trade barriers. Businesses which aren’t, however, are about to experience what other countries experiences when Coke and McDonalds, in the 80s and 90s, came to town, or manufacturers experienced in the 50s and 60s before the rise of Japan.

Developing countries, with lower costs, have an ironic advantage when it comes to survival of many businesses. But high profit, high cost countries like America and most European ones?

Toast.

***

I appreciate everyone who donates or subscribes to keep this site (and Ian) running. Readership is up over 40% this year, and I’m very grateful. If you want to help the blog, please share the articles you like and if you can afford it, and like the content, please Subscribe or donate.

Open Thread

By

On September 27, 2025

Comments

Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.

Page 4 of 422

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén