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

Category: Economics Page 1 of 92

Autarky Sure Looks Good

So, Trump has decided to raise tariffs on India to 50% (who knows if he actually will), over their imports of Russian oil. Meanwhile:

Senators Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, and Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal are the lead sponsors of a bipartisan bill which would impose primary and secondary sanctions against Russia and entities supporting Putin’s aggression if Moscow does not engage in peace talks or undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty.

The bill includes imposing 500-percent tariffs on imported goods from countries that buy Russian oil, gas, uranium and other products.

At this point all smart nations and blocs should be doing their best to reduce vulnerability to the US, to route around it and to move towards as much autarky as possible.

It’s notable that while China remains a huge trading power, the economic priority over the last eight years has been making all major industrial stacks domestic: ending their need for industrial goods from other countries and reducing their need for imports of resources. Where that’s not possible, they have shifted to reliable partners like Russia and Iran and various other nations in Asia, Africa and South America.

John Maynard Keynes was of the opinion that anything a country needed, it should make or grow at home if at all feasible. Price arguments are largely ludicrous, because if you don’t have vast exposure to trade or need to buy important goods overseas and you don’t allow significant currency movements outside your border, prices are largely a domestic matter. That is to say, they are a matter of policy. Government actions largely determine the price of goods and services produced in the country IF the country is capable of producing those goods and services itself.

Or, again, as Keynes said, “anything we can do, we can afford.” (The corollary is that anything you can’t do, you can’t afford.)

Trade dependency is foolish. It may be necessary in some cases, and certain policy choices require it, like export driven industrialization. But once you’ve got an industrial base, it becomes a choice.

If a country produces everything it needs, including reasonable luxuries, questions of employment become ludicrous. Just reduce working hours to 30 hours a week, or even 20, or institute an annual income. The idea that resources must be distributed thru jobs is, again, ludicrous. Once a society produces enough why not increase leisure? Why not encourage citizens to do art, write, study or even sun-bathe? Most people don’t have jobs they’d keep doing if they were independently wealthy. There is NO virtue to work that is not actually needed.

A trade structure which creates a vast web of interdependency doesn’t decrease the likelihood of war. The Europeans found that out in WWI: the pre-Great War world had vast amounts of trade, and it was argued that war between the Great Powers was obsolete: they would all lose massively. It was true that they’d all lose massively, and they still went to war.

All that too much interdependence does is restrain nation decision making ability, and, in democratic countries, the ability of politicians to actually do what their constituents want. (They often don’t consider this a bug, mind you. It’s nice to be able to say “we have to reduce taxes on rich people and corporations to be competitive”.)

Free trade is a bad idea for any country that isn’t postage stamp sized. If you can’t make it yourself, learn how. Trade for what you can’t grow or dig up yourself, and actually need. Eat seasonally.

This doesn’t mean “no trade”, it simply means managed trade and an emphasis on making as much as you can yourself.

Certainly no country which can avoid it should need to import food, and likewise and deep need to import energy is a huge weakness which can easily be used against you and which can lead to war. (This is the proximate cause of Japan attacking the US in WWII: America cut Japan off from oil, and they had to have it.)

This also leads back to our previous discussions on population levels and birth rates. A China with 1.4 billion people needs more imports than one with 600 billion people. An American with 150 million people is far freer than one with over 300 million.

As for defense, well, all real countries should have nukes and advanced missiles. It’s that simple. If you do, you’re a real country. If you don’t, you aren’t and are subject to easy blackmail by any great power.

Moving towards autarky is a worthwhile goal. In most cases it will never be achieved and full autarky is rarely a good idea, but getting close is.

(See also, “Ricardo’s Caveat”, because economists are wrong about comparative advantage in free capital flow systems.)

 

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER
And get new posts emailed to you once a day.

Europe Affirms Its Vassalage In Trade Deal With the US

This is a complete capitulation:

  • 15% tariffs on EU goods, 0% on US goods
  • EU to buy 750 billion dollars in LNG over the next 3 years (US LNG is more expensive than alternatives)
  • 600 billion EU investment in the US
  • 50% tariff on steel and aluminum to the US stays in place
  • A commitment to purchase huge amounts of US armaments

Japan has similarly capitulated, after previously standing firm.

Pathetic.

Ironically this leaves Canada as one of the only holdouts among America’s vassals. China, of course, has told the US to take a long flying leap off a short pier.

As I have noted before, the US has been cannibalizing its allies as it declines. This was true under Biden. Trump is only super-charging it. This cannibalization won’t change the trajectory, the US is DONE, but other countries accepting it means they will go down with the US

The EU was always in a hard place: it does export much more to the US than vice-versa. But it did have options, it just refused to take them. Cheaper energy from Russia is available, even during the war, Putin has been clear about that and it would mean much slower de-industrialization. Germany’s loss of industry has been, in particular, driven by high energy prices since the Ukraine war and the destruction of Nord Stream. German businesses which shut down in Germany have often moved to the US for the cheaper oil prices.

The way to strike back against the US was to hit America services: internet companies and break various copyright and patent laws. Hit the tax havens and take the money. (Ireland will squeal, but so what). This is where America really makes its money and it’s completely vulnerable. Meanwhile cut a deal with China, they’re the rising power.

The same is true for Japan, as it happens.

As Trump has shown, no deal is final. When politics change in Europe (and they will) this deal can be repudiated as the garbage it is. If that doesn’t happen soon, Europe’s decline will be much faster than it has to be.

What’s particularly interesting to me is the psychology of this. European elites are just so used to being vassals, and so completely without any pride (though they have plenty of vanity) that they are unable to stand up to America no matter what the humiliation. Russia was able to withstand far worse than what the US was doing, and even flourish, but Europeans can think of no way out but to capitulate. (To be sure, Russia had certain advantages the EU doesn’t have, but the reverse is true as well. The real issue is a lack of imagination and guts.)

Europe needs to get rid of its elite class, entirely, and find new leadership. Unfortunately it seems likely that they’re going to choose the idiot right, who will simply overcharge decline. After those morons fail, they may finally turn to decent leaders, but by then it will be too late to “save the garden” in most nations.

This capitulation has closed off one option: the third bloc. What could have happened is Europe, Canada, Mexico, Japan and other affected nations forming a unified trade bloc of their own, and taking unified steps against America. Such a coalition would have won the ensuing trade war and could have cannibalized the US rather than the other way around.

It is a pity, but unlike many historical vassals who resent their status, our current leadership seems to enjoy being house slaves. So all of this will be done the hard and ugly way.

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

 

Uber’s Finally Profitable & Workers and Customers Will Pay Back Its Losses Fast

Uber started in 2009. It incurred losses every year until 2023 except for a profit in 2019 which was due to selling subsidiaries in various countries. Numbers before the IPO are difficult to obtain, but it lost 31.5 billion from 2016 to 2022. Let’s assume a loss of equal to funding during the pre-IPO period, so 24.7 billion. This seems reasonable, since Uber never made a profit during the period.

So we’ll estimate Uber’s total losses at 86.2 billion from 2009-2022.

In 2023 Uber made a profit of 1.9 billion and in 2024 it made a profit of a little under ten billion. Prices for rides on Uber are between ten to twenty percent higher than taxi rides, rising to as much as 50% higher during surge pricing periods (when there’s the most demand.) Driver’s on average, get paid less than taxi drivers used to.

So–the workers get less, the customers pay more.

The strategy, as many people noted, including myself, was for Uber and Lyft to drive taxis out of business by undercutting their prices. Uber and Lyft didn’t need to make a profit, while taxi companies did. Once they had gained dominant market share, they raised prices and took oligopoly profits.

Everyone knew this was the play, and that people were getting subsidized rides now (Uber was much cheaper than taxis in the early years) in exchange for getting fucked over later. Well we’re now in the sandpaper condom period of “ride sharing”, where investors earn back their investment by hurting everyone else.

This should never have been allowed. Uber and Lyft violated massive numbers of laws and were just allowed to do so thru non-enforcement. The end result was obvious and it’s here now: worse wages, higher prices and less ability to regulate the industry.

This sort of stupid is why everything keeps getting worse. Every part of the “sharing economy” (which is no such thing) has made the lives of ordinary people worse. AirBnB in particular helped drive the rise in rental prices in hundreds of cities.

All that most tech-bro firms do is find a place where there isn’t market power, and try to add it. Same with Private Equity, which buys up entire industries in order to form oligopolies and monopolies, as it’s doing in the housing market now.

Market power always means more money for a few rich people and higher prices and worse income for everyone else involved in any given industry.

Welcome to the tech-bro future and remember, Soylent Green is people and so are high profits, always.

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

Ending Resource Separatism in Alberta and Canada

Alberta is a province in Canada with a lot of oil and a moderate but not yet dangerous separatism problem that polls a little below 30%. That’s far less than needed to win a referendum, but enough to support an insurrection or a large campaign of civil disobedience. It’s also a sufficient level of support for America to take advantage of in one of their patented color revolutions.

Though the level is higher than in the past, it’s nowhere near new. Growing up in the 70s and 80s in British Columbia I remember the anger.

Because there’s a lot of resentment in Alberta and out West in general it also gums up the works politically: the Premier of Alberta has been truculent and unwilling to join in on national efforts to resist Trump’s trade war, for example.

Alberta has oil. Lots of it. Most of it is crap, tar sands oil. It is because of Alberta oil that Canada has a trade surplus with America, in fact, we have a goods and services deficit.

Like all resource rich areas Alberta lives from boom to boom, and the good jobs are in the resource sector. At one time that resource sector was heavily taxed, but that’s far in the past and it is now heavily subsidized. So anything that seems to hurt the resource sector which the Federal government does, like environmental regulations or even renewable energy initiatives is resented. A lot of Albertans identify with oil company interests.

So, this issue needs to be dealt with. Its legs need to be cut out from under it.

The approach which will work is simple enough.

The federal government should either nationalize the oil industry or tax it at high levels when oil prices are high and take the money and just give checks to people in resource rich areas. (Not just Alberta, but also Saskatchewan in particular.)

Put 50% of profits or taxes into a sovereign development fund which invests in new non-resource businesses in resource areas in proportion to the income it receives from them (because resources always run out and one doesn’t want the West to turn into the Maritimes economically), and simply cut checks for the other 50% directly to people who live in the areas.

Make it so that the people of Alberta, Saskatchewan and other resource rich areas see the federal government as the one responsible for their prosperity and personal income, not oil barons.

Of course there are more steps which should be taken, but this is the first and fundamental one: reverse the underlying issue.

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER
And get new posts emailed to you once a day.

CPI Isn’t: Health Insurance Cost Index

The Consumer Price Index is taken as a proxy for how much consumers pay for goods and services. It isn’t, for a wide variety of reasons. Here’s another:

 

This is a component of overall CPI, but what it tracks is actually retained earnings. The justification is that if retained earnings are down, more of premiums are being spent on healthcare! Of course you don’t care about that, what you care about is how much your insurance costs.

Now there might be some technical argument for this IF all the other components of medical care costs were tracked accurately, but like everything else they are subject to hedonic adjustments and various other hand waving.

As a reminder, hedonic adjustments lead to conclusions like “there was recently a 20 year period during which car prices didn’t rise.”

I will be clearer, the US economy has been shrinking for some time. I’m not sure how long because the numbers are so poisoned it’s impossible to tell. The maximal case is since the early 90s recession (hedonomic adjustments for computers were off the charts, but the evidence finds no overall increase in productivity from computers.) The “almost for sure” case is from the financial crisis, so late 2007.

Almost everyone in the US is worse off, surveys find that two-thirds of Americans can’t afford a decent lifestyle and wealth is shrinking for everyone except the top 1%. This is all concealed by bullshit top line economic statistics.

Properly accounted for I doubt if the American economy is half the size of China’s, and where it matters (manufacturing and resources) it’s probably closer to a third the size. No, “will you have fries with that” and “my job is to write 1,000 page reports” jobs do not count. The second in particular is actively detrimental to the real economy, as is essentially everything done by finance, crypto, and at least half of what American tech companies do.

As I’ve noted before, Trump is accelerating the decline. We’ll go back to Trump’s “unique accelerationist genius” soon.

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

The Actual Mission Of Business Is Why We Can’t Have Good Things

Yesterday we talked about AI: how business has been adopting it wholesale even though so far most of the evidence is that it performs worse than humans on almost all tasks. They do this because bosses don’t want to deal with employees: they want drones that just do what they’re told, and hope that AI can replace humans.

Socrates famously said that people should eat to live, not live to eat.

Business provide services or goods to make money, they don’t make money to provide services or goods, and that’s the fundamental problem with our economy and capitalism.

If businesses were run for employees, by employees, they’d use automation and AI to make jobs better, not just to get rid of employees and hope to make more cash. If they were run for customers, then they’d use AI and automation to improve their services and goods. That might mean making them cheaper, in an economy with money, but there wouldn’t be a huge drive to get rid of employees. The question would be “does this make what we provide our customers better?”

This goes far beyond AI and automation, though. It’s why everything becomes crappified. Google, to give an obvious example, made Google Search crap to make more money. Facebook’s algo is hell, and makes Facebook worse, but it boosts engagement and make more money, while every study shows it makes people who use it more unhappy and depressed and spreads vast amounts of misinfo, optimizing for anger and outrage.

Pick whatever service or good you want (tractors are a good one) and the drive for profit over mission (despite all the BS in business books about mission) is why it’s getting worse and more expensive.

Organizations (not necessarily businesses) which optimized for good services and products wouldn’t act this way. They would also be more viable long run. Google is vulnerable to replacement (and some loss of search dominance is showing up) because their service is crap. Facebook has never managed to produce another good product and everything they buy, they crappify. But if people genuinely loved their services (and early Facebook — a timeline just of people you chose to follow, in reverse chronological order) was good, just as Google search, at the start, was breathtakingly good.

Profit first, and shareholders being the only people who matter, has the economy crap. It’s also one of the main reasons (along with oligopolization) for why the US has fallen behind China. Chinese businesses, though they have to make money, exist in a competitive market with an activist government which steps in when it sees excessive crapification. So they make their products better (including cheaper) to compete.

We need to find a new way to organize our society, which doesn’t optimize for profit, but optimizes for organization mission. When we do so, crappification will become the exception, not the rule.

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

 

Trump’s Absolutely Crazed Tariff Policies: Brazil and Copper Edition

So, Trump sent a letter to Brazil announcing 50% tariffs. His demands are that Brazil stop prosecuting Bolsonaro (ex-President who tried to steal the last election, and stole the one before by getting Lula locked up on bogus charges) and that they let US social media platforms operate unfettered the country. If Brazil puts tariffs on US goods, then the US will increase its tariffs by the same amount.

Here’s the thing, Brazil and the US have essentially even trade:

(light blue is exports, dark blue is imports)

The most recent services data I can find indicates that the US has a services surplus.

But more to the point, Trump wants to interfere in Brazil’s internal politics in a way that no Brazilian patriot could countenance. Nor would would Lula be wise to submit.

And Brazil’s exposure to the US market isn’t as serious as it may seem, the exports amount to a bit less than 2% of Brazil’s GDP. It can weather this storm easily. It’ll just sell more elsewhere or even just eat the loss.

What it does do is encourage Brazil to move away from trade with the US entirely, and the US’s main exports to Brazil are refined petroleum, aircraft and parts, nuclear reactor parts and electrical machinery and parts. With the partial exception of aircraft parts and nuclear parts (for US manufactured aircraft and US designed reactors) there’s nothing there Brazil can’t buy from someone else and Brazil imports the things any sane trade policy would want other countries to import: largely manufactured goods other refined petroleum.

Even with nuclear and aircraft, China is now an alternative for new planes and new plants.

So Trump doesn’t have much leverage, actually. Way less than with Europe and Canada and Mexico and Japan and even Canada, Mexico and Japan have resisted his trade war.

All Trump is doing is pushing Brazil away and into the arms of Chinese, and giving them reason to de-dollarize sooner and faster.

Insanity.

Then there’s Trump’s announced 50% tariff on copper imports. Now, on the face, this makes some sense: copper is important in industrial manufacture and having the US dependent on other countries, especially China is bad.

BUT starting at 50% just means that costs for virtually all manufacturing in the US will go up and US manufacturing will be less competitive.

Once again, the way to do tariffs is announce they will happen in X years, where X is the amount of time it will take to build new mines and refineries in the US. Or you could star them at 1% say, and raise them another percentage point every two months till they reach whatever level is necessary to get people to mine and refine in the US.

Just imposing them is the stupidest possible way to do it.

Trump’s just fundamentally incompetent at policy. He can’t do it. Policy under Trump only works if he lets someone else do it and leaves them alone, but for anything high profile he constantly wants to meddle, and he’s a boob.

Trump’s economicpolicy mix — defunding research wholesale, starting a trade war with the entire world, vastly slashing social welfare, discouraging visitors and immigration and getting rid of migrant workers is just accelerating America’s decline.

Trump is an idiot, a fool and the will likely go down as the President who sealed America end as a hegemonic great power. Among post-war Presidents only Obama and Reagan are in competition with him for last place, but because they started and managed US decline, they will avoid much of the blame.

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

 

Doomed Tesla (RoboTaxi Edition)

I’ll keep this one short and sweet.

Tesla was contacted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on Monday after videos posted on social media showed the company’s robotaxis driving in a chaotic manner on public roads in Austin, Texas.

Elon Musk’s electric vehicle maker debuted autonomous trips in Austin on Sunday, opening the service to a limited number of riders by invitation only.

In the videos shared widely online, one Tesla robotaxi was spotted traveling the wrong way down a road, and another was shown braking hard in the middle of traffic, responding to “stationary police vehicles outside its driving path,” among several other examples.

Elon Musk is not that smart. He chose to use cameras only, and not Lidar, against the advice of his own engineers.

China has robotaxis already. They work fine. They have Lidar.

Tesla is doomed. Their cars are worse than those of their competitors and more expensive. Robotaxis aren’t going to work. The only thing saving Tesla right now is 100% tariffs on Chinese autos, but even non Chinese electric cars are better and often cheaper.

Meanwhile Musk is in a feud with Trump, Trump has threatened to remove subsidies for Musk enterprises and Musk (again, an idiot) has said Trump should go ahead. And yes, he does need those subsidies.

The majority of Musk’s wealth is tied up in Tesla, and it’s days are numbered. Meanwhile Starship keeps exploding, the last time during fueling, not even after launch. There are a lot of competitors to SpaceX, and w/o NASA contracts SpaceX doesn’t look so hot either. Right now NASA is stuck with Musk, but that’s not going to last.

Musk isn’t going to be the world’s richest man much longer.

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of my articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. I’ve written over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

Page 1 of 92

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén