Thoughts on Trump Ending Affirmative Action in Contracting

By richard hanania

I’ve recently done a few appearances on Destiny’s livestream where he interrogated me on voting Republican. Honestly, when supporting a party is only a 60/40 decision for you, it’s hard to debate someone who is completely convinced in the other direction. When I wrote about why I was voting for Trump before the election, I had to tell the truth about the things that make me uncomfortable about the conservative movement, and its leader in particular.

But yesterday I realized that there’s an obvious answer to the question of why I should be a Republican. They’re the only ones who might listen to me! My vote is insignificant, and won’t determine an election. The only way I can hope to have influence is through my ideas. So I could start identifying with the left today and encourage everyone to vote Democrat, and my influence over policy will slide towards zero. If Destiny thinks I have sensible ideas, he himself should want me to be in a position to make a difference.

All of that was made clear to me when Trump last night repealed and replaced Executive Order 11246. This is a big deal. I wrote about how this little known EO changed American society in The Origins of Woke:

While Johnson originally signed EO 11246, it was the Nixon administration that ironically created the affirmative action regime we see today, over the resistance of a bipartisan coalition in Congress. Under the Labor Department, the administration began by forcing affirmative action on construction workers, first in Philadelphia, and then nationwide. This was followed up in 1971 by Revised Order No. 4, which expanded the regulations beyond the construction industry to all contractors and subcontractors doing business with the government beyond a minimum threshold, forcing them to adopt goals and timetables whenever women or minorities were shown to be “underutilized” relative to the relevant labor pool...

Nonetheless, while its legal basis is murky, there is much less doubt about the reach of EO 11246 and its successor documents. Because of the extent to which government spends money and involves itself in the economy, its ability to regulate contractors has always been a major source of leverage. Employers required to have an affirmative action program must include all of their facilities, employees, and operations in the plan, even if the government contracts in question represent only a small portion of their business. Moreover, the biggest employers in the private sector are more likely than most other businesses to have federal contracts; about a third of Fortune 500 companies did so in 2015. Today, about a quarter of the American workforce is employed by a government contractor. It is important to note that, pursuant to EO 11478 of 1969, affirmative action also exists within the federal government itself, which employs another 2 percent of the workforce.

Under affirmative action guidelines as applied to government contractors, it is no exaggeration to say that businesses are forced to be obsessed with race and sex. Long before people noticed that identity-related issues had consumed American universities, something resembling modern wokeness had already been forced on big business. Affirmative action is required for every employer with fifty employees that does at least $50,000 worth of business a year with the federal government, and every subcontractor with at least $10,000 in business. Government regulations specify that a “central premise underlying affirmative action is that, absent discrimination, over time a contractor’s workforce, generally, will reflect the gender, racial and ethnic profile of the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects.” If a contractor falls short in any particular area, it must take “practical steps” to make up for its deficiency.

One of the most sinister aspects of all this is that it forced managers at businesses who might want nothing to do with leftist ideas to become foot soldiers in the project of identity-based governance.

The employer is required to participate in a detailed process of identity-based classification and analysis. Middle managers for construction companies and retail store owners become social scientists. First, employers are forced to create an “organizational profile,” defined as “a detailed graphical or tabular chart, text, spreadsheet or similar presentation of the contractor’s organizational structure.” The contractor must break his business down into “organizational units,” and record the race, gender, and ethnicity of the supervisor of each one. Within each unit, the business must record the number of males and females of each of the following groups: blacks, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and American Indians/Alaskan Natives. Race and sex are to be determined by self-identification, with the employer prohibited from overruling an individual’s selection, although visual classification is acceptable under certain conditions. The next step is engaging in a “workforce analysis,” which divides the employees of a company by job title. Those with titles that are similar in terms of work and pay are combined into “job groups.”

This initial work is required to get to the “job group analysis.” This means comparing the number of women and minorities in each job group to their estimated availability in the population. And how does one determine availability? By coming up with a number for the “percentage of minorities or women with requisite skills in the reasonable recruitment area.” When a particular demographic is underrepresented in a job group, the employer must create “placement goals” to correct its deficiency…

Every aspect of employers’ analysis is reviewable by government bureaucrats. For the same reason that a contractor can always get around affirmative action requirements, the government can always find grounds to apply pressure on a business. From the contractor’s perspective, all they can know for certain is that they must go through the motions, and that hiring and promoting more minorities and women will be less likely to get them in trouble.

In my chapter on policy suggestions, I wrote that repealing EO 11246 was low-hanging fruit, but a more aggressive approach would involve banning government contractors from engaging in DEI policies.

I promoted my ideas to conservatives, including on Vivek’s podcast in early 2023, not long after telling him about EO 11246 for the first time. As Vox noted, he soon started promising to repeal the order on his first day in office if elected. Here’s a clip of me suggesting to him that a Republican president go further than that and use a new EO to ban DEI among contractors.

With Trump, it took two days. But we’ve gotten to the same place. Yesterday, the president signed a new executive order with the title “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” Section 3 repeals Executive Order 11246, giving contractors only 90 days before they must stop acting in accordance with previous rules. It then lays out new requirements.

(ii) The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs within the Department of Labor shall immediately cease:

(A) Promoting “diversity”;

(B) Holding Federal contractors and subcontractors responsible for taking “affirmative action”; and

(C) Allowing or encouraging Federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.

As I suggested Trump do, it then goes on to mandate color blindness.

(iii) In accordance with Executive Order 13279 of December 12, 2002 (Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations), the employment, procurement, and contracting practices of Federal contractors and subcontractors shall not consider race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin in ways that violate the Nation's civil rights laws.

(iv) The head of each agency shall include in every contract or grant award:

(A) A term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government's payment decisions for purposes of section 3729(b)(4) of title 31, United States Code; and

(B) A term requiring such counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.

(c) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with the assistance of the Attorney General as requested, shall:

(i) Review and revise, as appropriate, all Government-wide processes, directives, and guidance;

(ii) Excise references to DEI and DEIA principles, under whatever name they may appear, from Federal acquisition, contracting, grants, and financial assistance procedures to streamline those procedures, improve speed and efficiency, lower costs, and comply with civil-rights laws; and

(iii) Terminate all “diversity,” “equity,” “equitable decision-making,” “equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance,” “advancing equity,” and like mandates, requirements, programs, or activities, as appropriate.

Section 4 directs agencies to start looking for instances of violations of non-discrimination laws, as interpreted by the Trump administration of course, among private firms, non-profits, colleges and universities, and accreditation agencies.

It’s easy to say that a Trump administration would have done this even if I had never written my book. Maybe that’s true. The second administration is more serious about policy across the board. In 2016, Trump took over the GOP practically out of nowhere, nobody thought he would win the general election, and conservatives weren’t really prepared to do much of anything other than give him judges to confirm. The right has since then spent the last eight years thinking about how to make full use of the executive branch for when a Republican returns back to office.

But one thing this whole experience has taught me is that knowledge is fragmented and so much of politics, like life more generally, is about drawing attention. The Origins of Woke relies on the work of several scholars who are lesser known and have been hammering on some of the points I made in the book for decades, including Gail Heriot and Eugene Volokh, and many attorneys like Dan Morenoff and Alison Somin have done important work far from the public spotlight. And I think I probably originally learned about disparate impact from Steve Sailer. So there’s a kind of pipeline here, which in this case went Heriot et al-Hanania-Vivek-Trumpverse, from the most scholarly towards the most famous and attention grabbing. It’s been instructive to play a part in this process. One maybe can place Rufo in between Vivek and Trumpverse, or as part of an independent branch between Hanania and Trumpverse.

It’s possible no single person actually made the marginal difference here. If Trump hadn’t won the election, DeSantis certainly would’ve gone just as far. Vivek would have too, and even Nikki Haley opened her campaign with a video talking about wokeness as a threat to America, although in her case we can have doubts as to whether she would have taken decisive action on the issue. And maybe if Rufo and I didn’t exist, someone else would have filled our niches.

Yet for a long time, conservatives were completely asleep on the question of federal contracting. Consider that Trump’s first term head of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs was on a Federalist Society podcast in early 2023 where he bragged about expanding affirmative action and even bringing “intersectionality” into the analysis. This was well after Trump lost the 2020 election, conservatives started realizing that they would need a new approach to effect change, and DeSantis had begun selling himself as the policy guy who could actually provide real victories. If I didn’t bring this issue to the attention of conservatives, who would have?

Note also that the original Trump EO banning diversity training in the first term was a direct result of the president seeing Rufo talk about the topic on Tucker. It’s not like Tucker had another guest lined up who would have said the exact same thing. If Rufo hadn’t been doing TV appearances, Tucker probably would’ve invited in his place a guy who claims to have made love to Bigfoot, or whatever other nonsense grabbed his attention that particular week. Trump’s DEI training ban was revoked after Biden came into office, but it set the stage for the executive orders we’ve seen over the last few days.

All of this makes me think that politicians are in a sense less important than intellectuals and activists. It’s actually difficult for me to imagine all this happening without me or Rufo, but easy to imagine it happening without Trump.

As I discuss in the introduction to The Origins of Woke, I started thinking about the relationship between wokeness and civil rights law around 2011 while I was in law school. I then spent about a decade trying to convince people how important this topic was. Finally, I just wrote about it myself, and things started to change.

This book is the product of more than a decade of research and thought about American politics and culture. It was only in the mid-2010s that the subject of “wokeness” came to dominate political discourse. The phenomenon seemed to start on college campuses. Within a few years, it had migrated to other institutions. Those who critique what has happened to our institutions tend to think more of style than substance, pointing to instances of crying college girls demanding safe spaces, angry students yelling at their professors over “microaggressions,” and public debates litigating the definition of “woman.”

From this perspective, when wokeness seeps into policy, it is usually in the context of debates about standardized tests and crime prevention, but it is common to see a self-identified liberal who has an aversion to the aesthetic components of wokeness while accepting most of its policy agenda. Having followed these issues for years, I saw what was happening differently. To me there was always something off about the mainstream liberal worldview when it came to issues of race and sex, and the role of government in preventing discrimination on certain “protected” grounds. Such goals, I thought, naturally resulted in misguided policies that were destructive in terms of personal freedom, economic growth, and even the mental health of much of the public. I had gone to law school and spent a summer interning at the Center for Individual Rights, a public interest firm that fought against overreaches in civil rights law. When I saw the rise of what most educated people call wokeness, it seemed to be only the long overdue cultural manifestation of assumptions and beliefs that have in many instances been deeply embedded in American law for over half a century…

My thoughts about the relationship between wokeness and the legal system were spelled out in a June 2021 article called “Woke Institutions Is Just Civil Rights Law.” I was surprised to learn just how interesting the revelations in the piece were to conservatives, and to anti-wokes more generally. Those who had never been to law school did not know much about government regulations. At the same time, those with a legal background often had a superficial understanding of the issues involved but had not read or thought too deeply about how the law has shaped the wider culture. On more than one occasion, I have been talking to a highly intelligent conservative activist who was shocked when I told him that there is an executive order mandating that all large government contractors adopt affirmative action programs. The corollary is that an executive order could — at least in theory — also end such programs. Why hasn’t any Republican president even felt pressure from his base to undertake such an action, much less actually do it? Well, as it turns out, Ronald Reagan wanted to, and the story of how he was stopped, as told in chapter 6, offers interesting lessons for today’s politics.

Another lesson people can potentially draw from this experience is that it is possible to influence policy even if you’re starting out without much in the way of fame, connections, or money. Furthermore, my messaging hasn’t exactly been optimized to win over Republicans. Yet by making a compelling case in emphasizing the issue and bringing it to public attention, I was able to contribute towards changing the conversation on civil rights law. For anyone else who wants to influence policy, here’s a demonstration that it can be done.

Timing also matters. This could be the peak of my influence, at least in terms of directly changing laws and regulations. I was pushing anti-wokeness at a time when conservatives were obsessed with the topic and looking for answers. Now, I want to convince them to be pro-immigration, less nationalistic, and overall act like higher human capital, where the trends are in the opposite direction, so maybe nobody will listen to me anymore.

Whatever the case may be, Trump’s executive orders on diversity serve as a nice bookend to my work on wokeness. There are still other suggestions in my book, particularly eliminating disparate impact, that are yet to be implemented, but with Trump in office and conservatives in control of the courts I think it’s only a matter of time. Most political struggles end in failure or some kind of ambiguous outcome. But sometimes you advocate for an idea, and it just wins. I wanted conservatives to go to war against wokeness as a matter of policy, and the outcome has surpassed my most optimistic hopes. It’s a very satisfying feeling.

Articles Jan 24th 2025

Nehruvian Policies

The article titled "Nehru’s Tryst with Economics" delves into the foundational economic philosophy adopted during the tenure of India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and its long-term impact on the country's trajectory. Here are the key takeaways from the piece:

Key Themes:

Economic Vision of Nehru:

Nehru's leadership emerged in the aftermath of colonial exploitation. His focus was on building a self-reliant economy through state-led industrialization and planned development.

The policies aligned with a doctrine of welfare economics, emphasizing the primacy of the public sector.

Non-Aligned Economic Approach:

India pursued a nuanced neutrality during the Cold War era, steering clear of both capitalist and communist extremes.

Nehru laid the foundation for a mixed economy, combining elements of socialism and capitalism.

State-Led Industrialization:

Heavy industries and infrastructure were prioritized under the aegis of Five-Year Plans, with significant state intervention in sectors like steel, energy, and transportation.

This strategy aimed at reducing reliance on imports and building indigenous capacities.

Challenges and Evolution:

While the public sector led growth initially, the approach did not adapt swiftly to changing global and domestic realities.

The 1962 Sino-Indian War strained resources, stalling economic momentum and pushing India onto the defensive, both politically and economically.

Transition to Liberalization:

The article notes that India eventually shifted gears toward liberalization in the 1990s. This move sought to address inefficiencies in the public sector and unleash the potential of private enterprise. Lasting Impact:

Nehru’s policies laid the groundwork for India's industrial base and institutional framework. However, rigid adherence to socialist principles delayed reforms needed for a more competitive economy.

Reflections:

The article emphasizes that Nehru's vision was suited to the socio-political context of post-independence India. However, economic strategies need periodic recalibration. The transition to a liberalized economy in the 1990s corrected course, but Nehru’s contributions remain a critical chapter in India’s economic history.

This commentary serves as a reminder of the importance of balancing welfare with growth, flexibility with structure, and public good with private innovation

Peter Thiel on Trump

A time for truth and reconciliation

Trump’s return to the White House augurs the ‘apokálypsis’ of the ancien regime’s secrets

Peter Thiel

In 2016, President Barack Obama told his staff that Donald Trump’s election victory was “not the apocalypse”. By any definition, he was correct. But understood in the original sense of the Greek word apokálypsis, meaning “unveiling”, Obama could not give the same reassurance in 2025. Trump’s return to the White House augurs the apokálypsis of the ancien regime’s secrets. The new administration’s revelations need not justify vengeance — reconstruction can go hand in hand with reconciliation. But for reconciliation to take place, there must first be truth.

The apokálypsis is the most peaceful means of resolving the old guard’s war on the internet, a war the internet won. My friend and colleague Eric Weinstein calls the pre-internet custodians of secrets the Distributed Idea Suppression Complex (DISC) — the media organisations, bureaucracies, universities and government-funded NGOs that traditionally delimited public conversation. In hindsight, the internet had already begun our liberation from the DISC prison upon the prison death of financier and child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2019. Almost half of Americans polled that year mistrusted the official story that he died by suicide, suggesting that DISC had lost total control of the narrative.

It may be too early to answer the internet’s questions about the late Mr Epstein. But one cannot say the same of the assassination of John F Kennedy. Sixty-five per cent of Americans still doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Like an outlandishly postmodern detective story, we have waited 61 years for a denouement while the suspects — Fidel Castro, 1960s mafiosi, the CIA’s Allen Dulles — gradually die. The thousands of classified government files on Oswald may or may not be red herrings, but opening them up for public inspection will give America some closure.

We cannot wait six decades, however, to end the lockdown on a free discussion about Covid-19. In subpoenaed emails from Anthony Fauci’s senior adviser David Morens, we learnt that National Institutes of Health apparatchiks hid their correspondence from Freedom of Information Act scrutiny. “Nothing,” wrote Boccaccio in his medieval plague epic The Decameron, “is so indecent that it cannot be said to another person if the proper words are used to convey it.” 

In that spirit, Morens and former chief US medical adviser Fauci will have the chance to share some indecent facts about our own recent plague. Did they suspect that Covid spawned from US taxpayer-funded research, or an adjacent Chinese military programme? Why did we fund the work of EcoHealth Alliance, which sent researchers into remote Chinese caves to extract novel coronaviruses? Is “gain of function” research a byword for a bioweapons programme? And how did our government stop the spread of such questions on social media?

Our First Amendment frames the rules of engagement for domestic fights over free speech, but the global reach of the internet tempts its adversaries into a global war. Can we believe that a Brazilian judge banned X without American backing, in a tragicomic perversion of the Monroe Doctrine? Were we complicit in Australia’s recent legislation requiring age verification for social media users, the beginning of the end of internet anonymity? Did we muster up even two minutes’ criticism of the UK, which has arrested hundreds of people a year for online speech triggering, among other things, “annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”? We may expect no better from Orwellian dictatorships in East Asia and Eurasia, but we must support a free internet in Oceania.

Darker questions still emerge in these dusky final weeks of our interregnum. Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen recently suggested on Joe Rogan’s podcast that the Biden administration debanked crypto entrepreneurs. How closely does our financial system resemble a social credit system? Were an IRS contractor’s illegal leaks of Trump’s tax records anomalous, or should Americans assume their right to financial privacy hinges on their politics? And can one speak of a right to privacy at all when Congress conserves Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, under which the FBI conducts tens of thousands of warrantless searches of Americans’ communications?

South Africa confronted its apartheid history with a formal commission, but answering the questions above with piecemeal declassifications would befit both Trump’s chaotic style and our internet world, which processes and propagates short packets of information. The first Trump administration shied away from declassifications because it still believed in the rightwing deep state of an Oliver Stone movie. This belief has faded. 

Our ancien regime, like the aristocracy of pre-revolutionary France, thought the party would never end. 2016 shook their historicist faith in the arc of the moral universe but by 2020 they hoped to write Trump off as an aberration. In retrospect, 2020 was the aberration, the rearguard action of a struggling regime and its struldbrugg ruler. There will be no reactionary restoration of the pre-internet past.

The future demands fresh and strange ideas. New ideas might have saved the old regime, which barely acknowledged, let alone answered, our deepest questions — the causes of the 50-year slowdown in scientific and technological progress in the US, the racket of crescendoing real estate prices, and the explosion of public debt. 

Perhaps an exceptional country could have continued to ignore such questions, but as Trump understood in 2016, America is not an exceptional country. It is no longer even a great one.

Identity politics endlessly relitigates ancient history. The study of recent history, to which the Trump administration is now called, is more treacherous — and more important. The apokálypsis cannot resolve our fights over 1619, but it can resolve our fights over Covid-19; it will not adjudicate the sins of our first rulers, but the sins of those who govern us today. The internet will not allow us to forget those sins — but with the truth, it will not prevent us from forgiving.

Interesting Articles - January 8th 2025

52 Things I learned in 2024 : Ken Hendricks

Here are some of the most interesting things I learned this year:

1. Employees who use Firefox or Chrome have a 15% higher retention rate and report more satisfaction at work than employees who use Internet Explorer or Safari. This is because they’re less likely to accept the default way of doing things. (“What your web browser says about you“)

2. Doctors are 14% more likely to diagnose a child with ADHD on October 31, not because there are more kids with ADHD, but because the kids are excited to go trick-or-treating. (“Halloween, ADHD, and Subjectivity in Medical Diagnosis“)

3. It takes nine out of ten Americans to agree on a policy in order for it to have a 50% chance of being approved. (Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America)

4. When men feel their masculinity is threatened, they are 24 percentage-points more likely to want to buy an SUV. They are also willing to pay $7,320 more than non-threatened men for the same vehicle. (“Overdoing Gender: A Test of the Masculine Overcompensation Thesis“)

5. Swearing improves grip strength by 9%, wall sit time by 22%, and plank time by 12%. (“Effect of swearing on physical performance“)

6. Every culture has a word for black and white. If a culture has a third word for a color, it is always red. If it has a fourth word, it is either yellow or green. (Wikipedia)

7. Walking speed on the streets of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia has increased 15% since 1979. (“Shifting Patterns of Social Interaction: Exploring the Social Life of Urban Spaces Through A.I.“)

8. Indian Americans own about half of all motels in the United States. Of them, 70% have the last name Patel. (Life Behind the Lobby)

9. About 25% of the decline of casual sex among young men since 2007 can be explained by video games. (“Why Are Fewer Young Adults Having Casual Sex?“)

10. ChatGPT caused a 2% drop in the number of freelance jobs posted on Upwork. (“The Short-Term Effects of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Employment: Evidence from an Online Labor Market“)

11. AI produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions than humans! Humans emit 27g of CO2 in the time it takes to write three hundred words. ChatGPT, however, performs the same task in 4.4 seconds and produces only 2.2g of CO2. (“The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating are lower for AI than for humans“)

12. Russia fined Google $20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for blocking pro-Russia media channels on YouTube. The fine doubles each week it remains unpaid. After 219 weeks, Google will owe Russia a googol. (“Russia fined Google more than Earth’s entire GDP for a Millennium“)

13. For every 10% increase in missionaries to China from a Congressional district, a Congressman was 8% more likely to vote for foreign aid in subsequent decades. (“Missionaries and the Birth of International Development“)

14. In 2018, truckers in Maine received an extra $5 million in overtime pay because of the ambiguity created by the Oxford comma in a state law. (“Oxford Comma Dispute Is Settled as Maine Drivers Get $5 Million“)

15. After fluoride is introduced into a city’s drinking water, the number of dentist offices drops 9%. (“Equilibrium effects of public goods: The impact of community water fluoridation on dentists“)

16. Legalization of online sports betting generates an 8% increase in credit card debt among sports betters. The poor are disproportionately affected: low income households spend 32% more on betting than high income households. (“Gambling Away Stability: Sports Betting’s Impact on Vulnerable Households“)

17. Fidget spinners do not work. (“Putting a negative spin on it: Using a fidget spinner can impair memory for a video lecture“)

18. It takes twice as long to cook a chicken today compared to 100 years ago because twenty-first century chickens get less exercise. (The Essential New York Times Cookbook)

19. American baby names trends shifted from family names a century ago to popular names a generation ago to popular endings today. A generation of people named Jason has given way to babies with -son endings: Mason, Jackson, Grayson, and Carson. Today, 48% of the top 500 baby names share only ten endings. (“The mysterious tyranny of trendy baby names“)

20. Irish peacekeepers have been in Lebanon so long that some Lebanese are developing Irish accents. (“Irish peacekeepers stood their ground in the face of an Israeli invasion of Lebanon.“)

21. In 1985, a black bear in northern Georgia died from a cocaine overdose. It was stuffed and is now at the Kentucky Fun Mall in Lexington, Kentucky. Because of a loophole in Kentucky marriage law, it is allowed to perform legally binding weddings. (Wikipedia)

22. The Moon is part of the Diocese of Orlando, in accordance with the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which states that “any newly discovered territory was placed under the jurisdiction of the diocese from which the expedition which discovered that territory left.” (“Does the Church Have Jurisdiction Over the Moon?“)

23. Going to the moon was never popular. The only time a majority of Americans supported the Apollo program was right after the Apollo 11 landing, when 53% did. (“Public opinion polls and perceptions of US human spaceflight“)

24. Women are more likely to recommend shorter haircuts to clients they believe are as attractive or more attractive than themselves. (“Off with her hair: Intrasexually competitive women advise other women to cut off more hair“)

25. Heavy metal guitarists who play fast tend to have higher rates of intrasexual competitiveness, too. The main motivating factor behind becoming a heavy metal guitarist is not to impress women, but to impress other men. (“Extreme metal guitar skills linked to intrasexual competition, but not mating success“)

26. Pregnancy burns 50,000 calories. (Also, according to Claude, it also takes 50,000 calories to keep a small maple tree alive for one year; generate 12 pounds of honey; drive an electric car for 20 miles; run five marathons; heat a hot tub from room temperature to 104°; or dissipate the energy from a baseball-size meteor entering the upper atmosphere at 40,000mph. Happy Mothers Day!) “Metabolic loads and the costs of metazoan reproduction“)

27. Because they lose their hearing as they age, men over the age of twenty-five can’t hear noises higher than 17.4 kHz. Shopkeepers in the U.K. invented an alarm that plays 17.4 kHz at 100 decibels to drive away loiterers—mostly young men. (Eve: How the Female Body Drove 200 Million Years of Evolution)

28. By A.D. 750, because of copying errors and general forgetting-what-he-looked-like, the image of the Roman emperor on English coins evolved into a porcupine. (“Money, art, and representation: the powerful and pragmatic faces of medieval coinage“)

29. People overestimate others’ dishonesty by about 13.6%. (“Belief versus Reality: People Overestimate the Actual Dishonesty of Others”)

30. Vultures in India and Pakistan are dying from ingesting trace amounts of diclofenac, an anti-inflammatory given to cattle throughout India and Pakistan. Because of this, Zoroastrians burial rites, which require vultures, are under threat. (“‘Our culture is dying’: vulture shortage threatens Zoroastrian burial rites“)

31. The programming language C is 75.88 times more energy efficient than Python and 71.9 times faster. (“Ranking Programming Languages by Energy Efficiency“)

32. On average, spouses in the United States have genetic similarity equivalent to that between 4th and 5th cousins. (“We find that the genomes of observed spousal pairs are significantly more similar than that of opposite-sex pairs drawn from the same population. As a benchmark, the magnitude of this similarity roughly corresponds to the similarity between 4th and 5th cousins.”) (“Assortative mating at loci under recent natural selection in humans“)

33. Members of all-male groups are more prone to lying than groups comprised of both men and women. When the first woman joins an all-male group, the rate of lying plummets. (“Honesty of Groups: Effects of Size and Gender Composition“)

34. The requirement that homes be built at least 21 meters apart in parts of the UK dates back to a 1902 regulation drafted by two men who determined this was closest they could be to each other before they could see the other’s nipples through their shirts. (“Edwardian morals, Thatcher and bad design – why Britain’s homes are so hot“)

35. Men are more likely to order two hamburgers at McDonald’s when they order with a screen. When they order from a human, they tend to order only one. (Rory Sutherland)

36. A Massachusetts law requires that fortune tellers be licensed and prohibits “pretended fortune telling.” (“Massachusetts law about fortune tellers“) (via Marginal Revolution)

37. Baby simulators, originally intended to deter teenage pregnancy, actually made girls more likely to get pregnant. Girls who had a baby simulator had an 8% pregnancy rate compared to 4% for girls who didn’t. (“Efficacy of infant simulator programmes to prevent teenage pregnancy“)

38. In the 1990s, then-leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-ll, and current leader Kim Jong-Un got fake Brazilian passports and went to Disneyland in Tokyo (probably). (“North Korea and the Brazil passports: Why were they used by the Kims?“)

39. Negative TV coverage of gas prices starts when gas hits $3.50 per gallon. Each 50-cent increase in gas prices generates an additional 7.5 percentage points of coverage. Fox News covers gas prices most often. (“Bad news bias in gasoline price coverage“)

40. Car seats are not required on planes because it would reduce seat supply and raise fares, causing more families to drive. Because driving is more dangerous than flying, for every child a required car seat would save on an airplane, 60 would die in car accidents. (NTSB)

41. Each additional negative word in a news headline drives 2.3% more clicks. (“Negativity drives online news consumption“)

42. People know whether or not they want to buy a house in just 27 minutes, but it takes 88 minutes to decide on a couch. (“How long does it take to buy a house?“)

43. In 2019, the United States spent 1% of its federal budget on kidney dialysis. (“Patients vs. Profits: Who Wins in the Traditional U.S. Dialysis System?“)

44. In species where males invest in weaponry (antlers, horns, tusks, etc.), female brains are bigger. (“Brains vs Brawn: Relative brain size is sexually dimorphic amongst weapon-bearing ruminants“)

45. The first human object launched into space wasn’t Sputnik 1. It was actually a manhole cover accidently blown off test shaft during a nuclear test in Nevada 38 days earlier. It reached speeds equal to six times Earth’s escape velocity and was never found. (Wikipedia)

46. Donations to the NRA increase 30% the year after a school shooting occurs in a county. (“School shootings increase NRA donations“)

47. The producers of Mork and Mindy needed censors who spoke four languages to catch all the swear words Robin Williams tried to sneak in. (YouTube)

48.The lottery for getting drafted to fight in the Vietnam War wasn’t actually random. The numbers drawn came from a tub that was not thoroughly mixed, and the person drawing almost always drew from the top. (Misha Teplitskiy) Monte Carlo simulations estimate the probability the numbers were randomly drawn was 0.09%. (Understanding Probability)

49. Foreign leaders and diplomats who stay at the White House are entitled to courtesy laundry service. Most guests need only one or two items cleaned, except, apparently, Benjamin Netanyahu, who brings suitcases full of dirty laundry on each visit. (He denies this.) (“Israel’s Netanyahu brings his dirty laundry to Washington. Literally.“)

50. Waymo self-driving taxis generate 88% fewer property damage claims and 92% fewer bodily injury claims than human drivers. After driving 25.3 million miles, Waymo Driver had nine property damage claims and two injury claims, compared to 78 property damage claims and 26 injury claims from humans who drive an equivalent number of miles. (“New Swiss Re study: Waymo is safer than even the most advanced human-driven vehicles“)

51. Among luxury brands, an increase in the size of the logo by one point on a seven-point scale results in a $122.26 price decrease for Gucci and a $26.27 decrease for Louis Vuitton. (The Status Game)

52.Bulls can’t see red. It’s not red that makes them mad. It’s “being treated like crap” that makes them mad. (Eve: How the Female Body Drove 200 Million Years of Evolution)

Interesting articles - Jan 2nd 2025

Meghalaya Living bridges

Energy diversification

Article in hindu business Line

--- **Energy Diversification in India's Oil Import Strategy**

India’s energy strategy is witnessing a significant shift as it diversifies its oil import basket to reduce dependence on traditional suppliers from the Middle East. This change is driven by the country’s burgeoning energy demands and the need for long-term energy security.

### **Key Trends and Developments**

1. **Shift in Supplier Share**:

The share of Middle Eastern crude oil in India’s import basket is expected to decline. Russian crude has emerged as a major player, accounting for more than 40% of India’s total imports in 2024, with 1.7 million barrels per day (b/d) from January to September. - Iraq: Second-largest supplier with 940,000 b/d.
- Saudi Arabia: Third-largest with 623,000 b/d.
- The US and UAE also remain key suppliers.


2. **Focus on New Suppliers**:

- India is exploring long-term contracts with emerging oil producers like Guyana, spurred by diplomatic visits and strategic discussions.
- Guyana is being eyed as a potential major supplier, marking India’s foray into South American crude markets.


3. **Increased Refining Capacity**:

- India’s refining capacity is set to rise to meet growing demand. Policymakers are intensifying efforts to diversify crude sources, aiming to balance cost and security.

4. **Energy Security through Diversification**:

- The strategy includes reducing over-reliance on Middle Eastern suppliers and leveraging cheaper alternatives, like Russian crude, offered at discounts.

### **Demand Dynamics**

India is one of the fastest-growing oil consumption centers, surpassing China’s growth rate in 2024:
- Oil demand rose by 3.2% year-on-year, compared to China’s 1.7%.
- Petrochemical feedstock requirements are driving this surge, alongside increased industrial and transportation needs.


### **Strategic Implications**

- India’s diversification aligns with its aim to safeguard energy security amid geopolitical shifts and market volatility.
- The approach allows India to tap into more competitive pricing and secure supplies from a broader range of countries, reducing risks associated with regional instability.

### **Looking Ahead**

India’s energy diversification strategy is poised to reshape its import dynamics, emphasizing sustainability, cost-efficiency, and long-term partnerships with emerging oil-exporting nations. ---

Manmohan Singh Legacy as per Chat GPT

Manmohan Singh’s legacy is multifaceted, reflecting his roles as an economist, policymaker, and leader who steered India through transformative economic and political phases. Here's a deeper analysis of his contributions:

---

### **Economic Reforms and Liberalization (1991-1996)**

#### **Background**

When Singh became Finance Minister in 1991, India was on the brink of an economic collapse. The Gulf War had worsened the balance of payments crisis, foreign reserves were nearly depleted, and India faced the prospect of defaulting on its loans.

#### **Actions Taken*

1. **Liberalization of the Economy**:

Singh, in collaboration with Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao, dismantled the License Raj, which had stifled entrepreneurship and innovation for decades. This reform removed bureaucratic hurdles for businesses, encouraging private sector growth.

2. **Trade and Investment Reforms**:

Tariffs and quotas were significantly reduced, allowing greater participation in global markets. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) was encouraged in critical sectors, fostering economic integration with the global economy.

3. **Financial Sector Modernization**:

Singh implemented critical changes, including the establishment of private sector banks and financial institutions. These reforms led to a more robust banking system and laid the groundwork for India’s capital markets.

4. **Currency Devaluation**:

Singh devalued the Indian rupee to make exports competitive and stabilize the economy. Though politically contentious, this move restored investor confidence.

#### **Impact**

These reforms set the stage for India’s economic resurgence. GDP growth, which had stagnated in the late 1980s, picked up, averaging around 5.1% during his tenure. Industries like IT, pharmaceuticals, and automobiles emerged as global leaders.

--- ### **Leadership as Prime Minister (2004-2014)**

#### **First Term (2004-2009)**

Singh’s first term as Prime Minister was marked by bold policy initiatives aimed at inclusive growth: 1. **Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA)**: Aimed at providing employment to rural workers, MGNREGA became one of the largest social welfare schemes globally, lifting millions out of poverty.

2. **Right to Information Act**: This law empowered citizens by providing greater transparency in governance and reducing corruption.

3. **Right to Education Act**: Singh’s government made elementary education a fundamental right, ensuring free and compulsory education for children aged 6-14.

4. **India-US Civil Nuclear Agreement**: This landmark deal ended India’s nuclear isolation, allowing access to international nuclear technology and fuel while maintaining its strategic autonomy.

#### **Second Term (2009-2014)**

While Singh’s second term began with promise, it faced significant challenges:

1. **Economic Slowdown**:

Global financial crises and domestic policy inertia led to a decline in economic growth rates.

2. **Corruption Allegations**: Scandals, such as the 2G spectrum and coal block allocation cases, marred his government’s reputation, although Singh himself remained personally untarnished.

3. **Political Challenges**: Coalition politics and pressure from alliance partners undermined the government’s decision-making capacity, slowing the pace of reforms.

---

### **Leadership Traits and Challenges**

1. **Integrity and Dignity**:

Throughout his career, Singh was admired for his incorruptibility and ethical conduct. His reputation as a “gentleman-politician” set him apart in the often-contentious world of Indian politics.

2. **Steadfast Commitment to Policy**: Singh prioritized evidence-based policymaking and sought expert opinions before implementing reforms, valuing consultation over populism.

3. **Lack of Political Aggression**: Critics argue that Singh’s reserved and non-confrontational style limited his ability to assert authority, especially during his tenure as Prime Minister.

---

### **Long-Term Impact on India**

1. **Economic Transformation**:

Singh’s 1991 reforms set India on a path of sustained economic growth, transforming it into one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. His emphasis on liberalization continues to shape policy directions.

2. **Social Equity**:

Programs like MGNREGA and the Right to Education highlighted Singh’s commitment to bridging economic and social disparities.

3. **Global Standing**:

Singh’s tenure elevated India’s global stature. His diplomatic engagements, especially the Indo-US nuclear deal, showcased his ability to navigate complex geopolitical landscapes.

---

### **Legacy**

Manmohan Singh’s legacy is that of a reluctant yet transformative leader who combined intellectual depth with pragmatic action. While his tenure faced criticism, especially during his second term, his contributions to India’s economic and social fabric remain unparalleled. His life exemplifies the power of quiet leadership grounded in values, intellect, and an unwavering commitment to national progress.

---

NBA teams are not all playing exactly the same way

No, NBA teams are not all playing exactly the same way

And if you think they are, you're not paying attention to the right things

Jared Dubin

Everywhere you look these days, you can hear someone making some form of the same argument: “Every NBA team plays the same way.” It’s everywhere. It’s on TV. It’s on Twitter. It’s made its way over to Bluesky. It’s probably in your group texts and your DMs and your G-chats, if you’re still using that.

And I’m sorry, but it is just flat-out not true on any level. Like, not even close.

In the sense that somewhere between most and all teams shoot a lot of threes, there is a degree of similarity. But there’s a pretty big gap between the team that shoots the most threes (55.7% of Boston's shots come from beyond the arc) and the team that shoots the least (just 34.1% of Denver's shots are treys). And there are much wider disparities in the ways teams go about actually generating their shots — even among those who get similar types of looks.

Chicago takes the second-highest share of its shots from three, for example, but runs around twice as many hand-offs per 100 possessions as does Boston. In turn, the Bulls run both isolation plays and off-ball screens significantly less often than do the Celtics. Despite those differences, they’re pretty similar in terms of their shot profile, and that's all that people tend to focus on.

Take a look at each team’s play type distribution, and you can spot some pretty massive differences in the way they want to attack their opponents

The Grizzlies, as Ben Taylor explored at Thinking Basketball, essentially never run pick and rolls — at least in comparison with the average NBA team. Their 33.6 ball screens per 100 possessions average is not even in the same universe as the Suns' league-leading 83.8 picks per 100 mark. Yes, the Suns really are running more than twice as many pick and rolls per 100 possession than are the Grizz. And they’re actually joined by 11 other teams who are also more than doubling up Memphis in the P&R department.

I’m not sure how someone could see that, whether on their TV or computer screen or in the (advanced) stat sheet, and conclude that they’re all playing the exact same brand of basketball.

Similarly, you can’t look at the Jazz running nearly 70 off-ball screens per 100 possessions, then check out their former coach Quin Snyder’s new team in Atlanta — which runs just 29.3 of those per 100 — and not plainly see the massive difference in the ways those teams want to accomplish the same goal (scoring points), just based on who is coaching them.

Then you've got the Nets using a metric ton of dribble handoffs (48.8 per 100 possessions) to manufacture space for their players because they don't have an elite individual creator, while, as mentioned the Celtics barely need to bother with DHO action (9.3 hand-offs per 100) because they have Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown and Kristaps Porzingis and more. Boston just lets those guys isolate to their hearts’ content (27.1 per 100 possessions); but the Warriors (13.3 isos per 100) almost never do the same, instead running their motion offense that we’ve grown so familiar with over the years.

Of course, that’s just play types. They tell us what actions teams are running, but not necessarily how they go about their business offensively. To measure that, I borrowed a concept from friend of the blog Ian Levy, who back in the day created offensive style charts using the public player tracking data. I did the same analysis as Ian, using the following data points for each NBA team:

Pace: Seconds per offensive possession

Shot Selection: Moreyball Rate

Ball Movement: Seconds per touch on offense

Player Movement: Average feet traveled per 24 seconds on offense

I then converted each of those measurements into percentiles so they could be scaled together on radar charts, mostly because I like the way those charts look. And in those, too, you can see that there are so many teams playing basketball so differently from each other.

Check out the league’s three best offenses, for example. Cleveland is going about things in a way that is not remotely similar to either New York or Boston, which play somewhat similarly but also diverge in how quickly they seek shots and how much their players move around on each possession.

You can spot the same kinds of disparities among the NBA’s three worst offenses. New Orleans, Portland, and Washington all use vastly different styles of play to achieve their terrible results. There are a whole bunch of different ways to score inefficiently — which you can even do with a healthy shot distribution like the one the Blazers have.

How about some of the best individual offensive players in the league? Denver plays much differently than Milwaukee, which in turn plays much differently than Oklahoma City. And that makes intuitive sense, because Nikola Jokic, Giannis Antetokounmpo, and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander are not remotely similar players. Their teams play the style of basketball that best fits their skill sets, and they all still find their way to score at a top-10 rate. Similarly, I’ve written before about how, at least in terms of the ways they create offense for themselves and others, Luka Doncic and LeBron James might be the closest thing to each other in the league. And yet, their teams appear to play much differently, and they each are significantly different than, say, the Sixers. And the Sixers would likely be even more different than them both if their star players had been remotely healthy this season.

We can also look at some of the younger teams with highly unusual offenses. Memphis, as mentioned, runs a much different offense than pretty much everyone else in the NBA. But its way of going about things from an offensive theory standpoint is also much different from teams like Orlando and Utah, which are also not similar to each other at all

And honestly, if you’re paying attention, it’s not even all that hard to spot these differences in style of play. If you’re willing to look at anything beyond “everybody shoots threes,” that is.

There are plenty of legitimate critiques of today’s NBA. The idea that everyone in the league is playing the same exact way just isn’t one of them.

Insights from Mohnish Pabrai

Sumner Central Claims : Chat GPT

Overview: Sumner’s Central Claims

Macroeconomics Should Resemble Finance More than Engineering

Sumner contrasts “engineering-style” macro models—those built around mechanical relationships like the Phillips Curve or the Taylor Rule—with a more “finance-style” approach that embraces forward-looking asset prices. Traditional engineering-style models try to pinpoint how specific policy levers (interest rates, fiscal deficits, monetary aggregates) mechanically translate into macro variables like inflation. By contrast, a finance-style perspective acknowledges that markets respond in real time to news about monetary policy’s future stance, making policy expectations central to actual outcomes.

Prediction Is Very Hard, but Ex Post Explanation Is Somewhat Easier

Just as stock prices (Nvidia, Bitcoin) are nearly impossible to forecast accurately, inflation forecasts are famously unreliable. Ex post, however, we can often tell a coherent story: e.g. “AI-fueled demand for Nvidia chips” or “supply chain disruptions + too-easy monetary policy caused inflation.” But because reality is so complex, any “equation-heavy” approach risks failing badly out of sample.

Inflation Dynamics Mostly Reflect Monetary Policy Mistakes

Sumner insists that if a central bank truly wants to keep inflation around 2%, it can do so—on average—over the longer run. Deviations from that 2% path primarily happen because central banks choose (intentionally or accidentally) not to bring inflation back on target. Thus, in his view, “undesirable” demand-driven inflation almost always stems from central bank errors, rather than exogenous shocks or “faults” in capitalism itself.

Level Targeting and “Target the Forecast”

Sumner’s policy advice is to adopt “level targeting” (for prices or NGDP) rather than “growth rate targeting.” Level targeting requires making up for past misses: if inflation runs above target one year, it must come in below target in subsequent years to bring the price level back to its original path. This design encourages stabilizing speculation in financial markets: once the public knows the central bank will always “undo” overshoots or undershoots, asset prices start moving preemptively to push the economy back onto the desired path.



The Fed’s 2021–22 Mistakes and “Asymmetrical” FAIT

Sumner argues the Federal Reserve’s Flexible Average Inflation Targeting (FAIT), introduced in 2020, turned out to be one-sided in practice. The Fed said it would tolerate higher inflation to make up for previous undershoots, but never committed to tolerating below-2% inflation to correct future overshoots. In his telling, this asymmetry (combined with stimulus in 2021–22) explains why inflation overshot so dramatically. If the Fed had adopted a truly symmetrical level targeting rule, it would have tightened earlier, keeping average inflation around 2% over the 2020–2024 window.

Market Forecasts Are the Least Bad Forecasts

Sumner embraces a kind of (qualified) Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), suggesting that the best real-time gauge of future inflation (or NGDP growth) is gleaned from market indicators such as TIPS spreads, forward rates, or CPI futures. A central bank that cares about hitting, say, a 2% path for inflation should “target the forecast” by adjusting policy instruments until market indicators imply 2% inflation going forward.

Key Themes in Sumner’s Argument

1. Engineering vs. Finance Perspectives

Engineering-Style Macro

This approach features mechanical relationships:

Phillips Curve: inflation is higher when unemployment is low. But Sumner points out that a simple Phillips Curve fails to explain why inflation stayed subdued in 2019 even at 3.5% unemployment (or why 1933–34 had rising prices with 25% unemployment).

Taylor Rule: interest rates below some “neutral” level ignite inflation. Fine—but then how do we explain near-zero policy rates in the early and mid-2010s with no inflation surge? Quantity Theory: M×V = P×Y. Fine for big historical swings (hyperinflations, 1960s–70s, etc.), but poor for short-run year-to-year guidance. Different definitions of “money” often give conflicting signals. Fiscal Theory: big post-Covid deficits coincided with high inflation; but then why didn’t big deficits in 2015–19 spark inflation? And why did Japan remain deflationary despite high debt? Finance-Style Macro

Here, the focus is on expectations and market-driven asset prices. Because the public knows the central bank is ultimately in the driver’s seat for nominal variables, inflation and NGDP growth become as much about “credible commitments” as about specific policy levers. Sumner’s signature example is the Hong Kong Monetary Authority’s currency peg. HK does not need to “predict” or “explain” every movement in demand for its currency; it simply adjusts the monetary base to maintain a fixed exchange rate. Something similar, Sumner says, could be done with an inflation forecast peg: if the market expects above-2% inflation, the Fed tightens until that forecast returns to 2%, regardless of interest-rate or money-supply changes.

2. Ex Post vs. Ex Ante Complexity

Sumner’s emphasis on the difficulty of forecasting stands in sharp contrast to the relative ease of explaining after the fact. He notes that the very same phenomenon arises in asset prices. The conclusion is that macroeconomists—like stock-market forecasters—should be more humble in their predictions, and focus on policy frameworks that mitigate the damage when something inevitably goes wrong.

3. Role of Policy Mistakes

Under Sumner’s view, one cannot fully “explain” inflation dynamics without highlighting that central banks fail to offset demand shocks. If they target inflation (or NGDP) and faithfully “level target,” demand-side inflation shouldn’t stray too far from goal. In real life, however, policymakers deviate from best practices: they might be swayed by politics (“We must create jobs!”), by institutional inertia (“We’ve never tried pegging a forecast.”), or by poor forecasts (“We trust our model’s projection over TIPS spreads.”). These mistakes accumulate, resulting in persistent overshoots or undershoots.

4. Why Level Targeting Stabilizes

Under true “level targeting,” the central bank commits: “If inflation runs above 2% this year, we will shoot for below 2% next year to return to the original price-level path.” Because the market knows the central bank will do so, interest rates and other asset prices react promptly—long before inflation drifts too high. Traders profit by betting on the eventual correction; in so doing, they enforce the correction earlier. In Hong Kong’s example, speculators know the Monetary Authority will step in whenever the HKD strays from the 7.75–7.85 band. This self-fulfilling stabilizing speculation keeps the HKD dollar stable with relatively few “concrete steps.”

By contrast, “let bygones be bygones” inflation targeting (which is standard) only aims to hit 2% this year, ignoring last year’s overshoot. Under an asymmetrical FAIT, policy overshoots remain in the system, leaving more room for cumulative drift.

5. Why Traditional Models (Often) Disappoint

Sumner takes aim at dissertations titled “Money Demand in Turkey” or “Fiscal Multipliers in Country X.” Such projects typically try to find stable coefficients (e.g., the “multiplier” = 1.2, or the elasticity of money demand = –0.9) in a complex system. But once the political regime, the central bank’s reaction function, or the data sample changes, these relationships break down. Out of sample, these engineering models often fail.

6. A Broader Philosophy-of-Economics Angle

Sumner draws an analogy to Richard Rorty’s take on truth and epistemology. Rorty wasn’t denying that there is truth; he was questioning whether a universal theory of truth was a meaningful endeavor. Likewise, Sumner does not deny that inflation has causes; he denies that a simple macro model—stuffed with equations for deficits, interest rates, money supply, etc.—captures the real source of volatility. For him, the root cause is always: the central bank doesn’t do the symmetrical offsetting it claims to do.

Points of Tension and Critiques

Is Everything Really a Policy Mistake?

Many mainstream economists find it reductive to label every inflation swing as a mistake by the Fed. They point to structural or non-monetary factors (energy price shocks, geopolitical events, supply chain meltdowns). Sumner concedes that supply shocks should lead to some flexible deviation in inflation. But in his view, persistent divergences (e.g., 2021–22) reflect excessive nominal spending growth that the Fed could have reined in, had it chosen a stricter offsetting rule.

Is Financial-Market Forecasting Always “Least Bad”?

Sumner champions the EMH, but critics would note that markets can also overreact or exhibit herding. The puzzle is whether TIPS spreads or other market-based inflation indicators consistently offer better signals than sophisticated in-house models at the Federal Reserve. Sumner’s stance: “It’s not that markets are perfect, but compared to who?” Communication and Political Constraints

Even if one granted that “pegging the inflation (or NGDP) forecast” is the optimal rule, it might be politically (or institutionally) hard for the Fed to break its long-standing practice of using interest rates as the main “concrete step.” Changing to “We are now pegging the real-time inflation forecast” would be a huge conceptual leap for policymakers, journalists, and the broader public.

Excessive Focus on the Nominal at the Expense of the Real?

Tyler Cowen’s critique (as Sumner mentions) sometimes suggests that Sumner’s focus on “the nominal” misses the deep structural forces in the economy—technology, demography, global supply chains. Sumner’s response: “Nominal instability causes cyclical problems. If you want to talk about ‘real’ structural issues, that’s fine, but they don’t directly drive inflation. A central bank can always offset those to keep nominal demand stable.”

Why Sumner’s Perspective Appeals to Some

Logical Consistency + Simple Core Once you accept that the central bank (a) has the last word on nominal variables over the long run and (b) can neutralize demand shocks if it chooses to, it follows that persistent overshoots are policy mistakes. This framework also elegantly explains why certain big fiscal expansions do not cause inflation (the Fed offset them) while other expansions do cause inflation (the Fed tolerated them).

Ex Post Track Record

Sumner points to examples like 2012–13, when many Keynesians predicted looming recession from “fiscal austerity.” Financial markets were not pricing in gloom, and Sumner argued the Fed would offset austerity. Indeed, no double dip ensued and growth actually picked up. He admits there is luck involved, but the underlying logic—“The Fed offsets demand shocks”—still resonates with younger economists who see too many “missed predictions” from conventional models.

Market Monetarism’s Emphasis on NGDP Much of Sumner’s alternative approach is spelled out in his work on “market monetarism,” which contends that stabilizing nominal GDP along a level path is usually superior to pure inflation targeting. This stems from the notion that stable nominal spending helps avoid both deflationary slumps and runaway inflation, mitigating many real-world business-cycle pathologies.

Concluding Thoughts

Sumner’s post aims to clarify why his “market-driven” approach to inflation—and to macro more generally—differs from standard Phillips Curve or Taylor Principle narratives. He does not claim to offer a formula to predict inflation. Instead, he claims:

Excess inflation comes from the central bank choosing (or erring) not to rein in nominal spending growth. We can better stabilize inflation (and output) if we adopt level targeting and allow real-time market forecasts to guide policy. Macroeconomic forecasting is inherently unreliable, so we should focus on robust policy rules that reduce the cost of being wrong. Ultimately, Sumner wants to push macro toward what he calls a “finance perspective”: target your policy goal the way a currency board pegs an exchange rate, harnessing stabilizing speculation in the process. His view is that the “engineering” perspective—stuffing hundreds of ad hoc relationships into a big model—over-promises and under-delivers when it comes to explaining (and especially predicting) real-world inflation volatility.

Where many see an unsolved puzzle (“Why did inflation jump here but not there?”), Sumner sees repeated central bank “own goals.” He believes that any workable “model of inflation dynamics” must start with the premise: “Central bankers deviate from a symmetrical level target and fail to offset demand shocks.” Everything else is minor detail.

Whether one finds this framework too simplistic or refreshingly parsimonious, Sumner’s arguments have influenced a generation of “market monetarists.” While mainstream economists still focus on standard interest-rate policy and Phillips-curve-style analysis, Sumner continues to press for a fundamental overhaul—one that, he hopes, might one day make macro as “boring and predictable” as a currency peg or a strict nominal target.

Multiple Drone Incursions Confirmed over Marine Corps Base Camp

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in southern California experienced multiple drone incursions over its airspace the past several days, a facility spokesman told The War Zone on Tuesday morning. Between Dec. 9 and 15, “there were six instances of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) observed entering Camp Pendleton’s airspace, with no threat to installation operations,” Capt. James C. Sartain, a base spokesman, told The War Zone in response to our query on the matter. Sartain could not immediately provide details about how many drones flew over the installation, their origin, what actions were taken in response and if any air or ground operations were affected as a result of the incursions. We have asked for these details and will update this story should any be provided Located in north San Diego County, MCB Camp Pendleton is the Marine Corps’ major west coast training facility. It is home to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Logistics Group, elements of the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, and several other tenant units including Marine Corps Air Station Camp Pendleton, ACU-5, Naval Hospital, Marine Corps Tactical Systems Support Activity (MCTSSA), Weapons Field Training Battalion, Naval Weapons Station Fallbrook, and Deployment Processing Command/ Reserve Support Unit – West. This is just the latest in a growing string of incursions reported over U.S. military installations at home and abroad. News about MCB Camp Pendleton follows a drone incursion over Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio forcing the closure of its airspace Friday night into Saturday morning. The War Zone was the first to report that incident. On Tuesday, Wright-Patterson officials announced that there were additional incursions over the facility. “Small unmanned aerial systems were spotted in the vicinity of and over Wright-Patterson AFB’s Area A and Area B during the late evening and early morning of Dec. 16 and Dec. 17th,” the 88th Air Base Wing said in a statement. “Installation leaders have determined that none of the incursions impacted base residents, facilities or assets. The Wright-Patterson AFB airspace was not affected by the incursions.” “The number of systems has fluctuated, and they have ranged in sizes and configurations,” the release added. “Our units continue to monitor the airspace and are working with local law enforcement authorities and mission partners to ensure the safety of base personnel, facilities and assets. We request individuals in the area to contact either local police or Security Forces if they see anything suspicious, to include sUAS’s or drone activity.” This all comes amid a growing frenzy about drones that began when they appeared over Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey on Nov. 18, which we were the first to report. Since then, the FBI said more than 5,000 reports of drone sightings came into its drone hotline, of which fewer than 100 merited further investigation. On Monday night, the Pentagon, FBI and Department of Homeland Security issued a statement that they have “not identified anything anomalous and do not assess the activity to date to present a national security or public safety risk over the civilian airspace in New Jersey or other states in the northeast.” The full statement is below: “There are more than one million drones lawfully registered with the FAA in the United States and there are thousands of commercial, hobbyist and law enforcement drones lawfully in the sky on any given day. With the technology landscape evolving, we expect that number to increase over time. FBI has received tips of more than 5,000 reported drone sightings in the last few weeks with approximately 100 leads generated, and the federal government is supporting state and local officials in investigating these reports. Consistent with each of our unique missions and authorities, we are quickly working to prioritize and follow these leads. We have sent advanced detection technology to the region. And we have sent trained visual observers. Having closely examined the technical data and tips from concerned citizens, we assess that the sightings to date include a combination of lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones, and law enforcement drones, as well as manned fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and stars mistakenly reported as drones. We have not identified anything anomalous and do not assess the activity to date to present a national security or public safety risk over the civilian airspace in New Jersey or other states in the northeast. That said, we recognize the concern among many communities. We continue to support state and local authorities with advanced detection technology and support of law enforcement. We urge Congress to enact counter-UAS legislation when it reconvenes that would extend and expand existing counter-drone authorities to identify and mitigate any threat that may emerge. Additionally, there have been a limited number of visual sightings of drones over military facilities in New Jersey and elsewhere, including within restricted air space. Such sightings near or over DoD installations are not new. DoD takes unauthorized access over its airspace seriously and coordinates closely with federal, state, and local law enforcement authorities, as appropriate. Local commanders are actively engaged to ensure there are appropriate detection and mitigation measures in place.” However, public furor has become so concerning that the FBI and New Jersey State Police last night issued a plea for people to not fire lasers or bullets at anything in the sky. “We are seeing an increase of pilots of manned aircraft being hit in the eyes with lasers as people on the ground think they see a drone,” cautioned Nelson Delgado, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Newark Field Office, which is leading the drone investigation. “We are also concerned that people will take matters into their own hands and fire a weapon at an aircraft. Not only is this act against the law, but it poses an incredible danger to the pilots and passengers on those aircraft.” “Whatever your beliefs are,” Delgado added, “putting someone else’s life in danger is not the answer.” The FBI warning came after pilots of 15 fixed and rotary wing aircraft from Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst reported being struck by lasers from the ground since Dec. 7, Capt. Kitsana R. Douglomachan told The War Zone. One of those pilots had to seek medical treatment but was quickly released. All aircraft landed safely, he said, adding that officials do not know who fired the lasers. NJ.com was the first to report these incidents. Monday night, Hill Air Force Base became the latest installation experiencing drone incursions. “We can confirm that unmanned aerial systems were spotted in the vicinity of Hill AFB recently,” a spokesperson told KUTV–2 news Monday night. “To date, unmanned aerial systems have not impacted Hill AFB operations and all appropriate measures are being taken to safeguard Hill AFB personnel, assets, and infrastructure.” By Howard Altman in The Warzone

U.S. officials are still trying to discover the origin of drones that appeared over four U.S. Air Force bases in the U.K., another story we first broke. They’ve been spotted over RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall, and RAF Feltwell, all within close proximity, and RAF Fairford, about 130 miles to the west. A few days earlier, Ramstein Air Base in Germany joined the growing list of places registering unknown drone overflights.

TWZ has been on the leading edge of covering this topic for years and has broken multiple stories now about drone incursions over key U.S. bases and training ranges, as well as uncrewed aerial systems harassing American forces off the coasts of the United States and making worrisome overflights of important non-military sites. A spate of drone incursions over Langley Air Force Base in Virginia in December 2023, which TWZ was the first report on, has now become a particular focal point of concern about these instances. While authorities are downplaying the majority of public drone sightings, they acknowledge a real concern about those flying over military installations, which as we have noted, forced the closure of airspace over one of those facilities.

Update: 4:37 PM Eastern – MCB Camp Pendleton responded to our additional questions about the drones spotted over the facility. “Each instance of observance occurs when an individual, via line of sight, observes a suspected unmanned aerial system (UAS) perceived to be in Camp Pendleton air space. Based on observation for all six instances, deploying countermeasures was not necessary, and air and ground operations were not impacted.” The Pentagon’s top spokesman on Tuesday acknowledged that some of the drones flying over U.S. military bases could have been up to no good and shed additional light on the counter-drone capabilities being sent to two facilities in New Jersey.

“Is it possible that some of those drones could be up to malign activity? That’s entirely possible, but in the vast majority that is not the case,” Air Force Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder told reporters, including from The War Zone. “When we detect them, [we] attempt to classify them and take appropriate measures,” he added. “Is it possible that some of those are surveilling? Absolutely. But can you make that assumption in every case? Not necessarily so in each case.

Installation commanders “have the authority to respond appropriately, and we’ll continue to do that.” As mentioned earlier in this story, both Picatinny Arsenal and Naval Weapons Station Earle will be receiving equipment to help them track and, if necessary, defeat drones. During his presser, Ryder offered new details of those capabilities.

“In addition to some of the capabilities that are already on these installations, these capabilities essentially will enhance a base authority’s ability to detect, identify and track UASs,” Ryder explained. “So for example, this could include active or passive detection capabilities, plus capabilities like the system known as Dronebuster, which employs non-kinetic means to interrupt drone signals and affect their ability to operate.” In a follow-up exchange with The War Zone, Ryder confirmed that Picatinny will be receiving the Dronebuster equipment. It’s a man-portable, radio-frequency jamming system with a pistol grip made by a company called Flex Force.

The Pentagon “doesn’t see a connection between the drone sightings over military bases in the U.S. and overseas, Ryder said. When we pushed him to tell us the visual and sensor similarities between these sightings, he declined to answer. Ryder reiterated a point made yesterday that the drones being reported are not connected to the military. They are not associated with the National Aerospace Research and Technology Park (NARTP) in southern New Jersey that develops and tests drones, he added.

NBA's problem is Economics and not Basketball

By Tyler Cowen in Bloomberg

The NBA seems to be having some trouble. This season’s TV ratings are either down precipitously or struggling to hold even, a shift too dramatic to be explained by cord-cutting alone, and meanwhile the NFL is doing fine. Tickets for the NBA Cup, the finals of which were Tuesday night (congratulations, Giannis!), went for half of what they did last year.

Part of the explanation may be that both teams are from small markets — Milwaukee and Oklahoma City — and part may be that fans have yet to figure out why they should care about this midseason tournament. The most plausible explanation, however, is economic

The NBA has a salary cap, which prevents teams in major markets, such as the Los Angeles Lakers or New York Knicks, from snapping up all the talent. An unfortunate side effect is that it is harder for all teams to bid for additional players, or to keep the ones they have. Even when the total amount of the cap goes up, adding more talent at the margin has become increasingly costly in terms of penalties. It is becoming more difficult to form and maintain durable great teams, which makes it harder to elevate new superstars, which is what many fans want.

Think about a casual fan’s impressions of the NBA. They have heard of Michael Jordan and LeBron James, and maybe watched them play or even seen their movies. They know they are two of the all-time greats. The 27th-best player over the that same time span — whoever it may be — is extremely accomplished, but does not attract anything close to the same attention. Superstars are what the game and its popularity are about, most of all with the marginal fans who do not know every player.

It is not surprising that one of the best-known players today, with more than 8 million Instagram followers, is Bronny James, son of LeBron. Bronny has barely played in the NBA and is far from a star; his popularity stems from his family story.

Jordan won six rings and LeBron four, but who is to follow in their footsteps and be the game’s marquee player? One candidate was Nikola Jokic, center for the Denver Nuggets and three-time MVP. Given his extraordinary statistics, he is in the running to be MVP again this year.

His team is another story. The Nuggets won an NBA title in 2023, but since then they have been in free fall. They let some of their key rotation players leave, most of all because of the salary cap. If they had kept those players around, or brought in star replacements, the Nuggets would have had to pay large fines to the league. Denver is a relatively small basketball market, so it made more sense to let the players walk. Jokic thus might retire with only one ring, when he could have three or four and become a truly iconic star.

Giannis Antetokounmpo was another contender to be the face of the game, and in addition to Tuesday night’s NBA Cup, his Milwaukee Bucks won a championship in 2021. Since then, they have not come close to winning again, or to patching up their limitations.

In fact, over the last six years, six teams have won the league title. Compare that to the 1990s, when Jordan’s Chicago Bulls won six titles, or to the 1980s, when the Celtics and Lakers between them won eight titles, with numerous iconic matchups against each other along the way. Tim Duncan’s San Antonio Spurs, Kobe Bryant’s (and Shaquille O’Neal’s) Lakers and Steph Curry’s Golden State Warriors all produced dominant teams with top stars.

Of course, there are also problems with the product itself. Regular-season games don’t mean very much, and the median outing is too often mediocre. Optimizing players no longer give their best in these settings. Due to basketball analytics, too many 3-point shots are taken. What was originally a source of excitement has become routinized and predictable. And perhaps American fans don’t relate as well to the growing number of foreign players and stars.

Yet there have always been issues with the product. In the 1990s, for example, there were far too many ugly fouls, and some say expansion diluted competition. The league’s main problem now is systemic. The NBA needs to remember that competitive parity is unsatisfying, and that we live in a celebrity culture. It’s all about who is going to be the next No. 1 — and the league needs to let market forces have a greater say.

Interesting articles 19dec24

Bringing Elon to a knife fight

By Jennifer Pahlka in Eatingpolicy substack

DOGE has made it both impossible not to talk about government reform, and impossible to talk about it. The topic is everywhere, but the subject is now entirely eclipsed on the left by the horror of who has been assigned the task and the need to decry DOGE as a bad faith effort. Elon wants to launch his rockets without government interference, Vivek wants to gut the civil service, both want to cater to cronies. I am being told on the socials that anyone engaging in discussion of how to shape this effort or what good it could potentially bring is enabling the ambitions of an autocracy. The problem itself, barely legible to Dems before DOGE, is off the table again.

But we do need to talk about government reform, and while I’m sorry the conditions are quite a bit less than ideal, I think it's time we admitted they were always going to be. Democrats did not do this work. Many wonderful public servants made valiant efforts and scored some great wins, but Democratic leadership did not make it a top priority to clear out the underbrush that jams the gears of government. Elon’s ambitions should not serve as cover for Dems to continue to abdicate responsibility here. Until we know more about what DOGE is planning, I support Dems like Ro Khanna for pledging to work with them.

I am guessing that those most worried that DOGE will succeed have never tried their hand at reforming government. It’s hard. But easier, you say, with no respect for the law, and the DOGE team will be unencumbered by such details. But that’s not true. The lawsuits will come. A lot of the government tech community is skipping the hand wringing; they've basically just grabbed a bag of popcorn and are watching in real time as Elon and Vivek learn all the things they’ve known, lived, and absolutely hated for their entire time in public service. They don’t see DOGE as their savior, but they are feeling vindicated after years of shouting into the void. I am struck by how different the tone of the DOGE conversation is between political leaders on the left and the people who’ve been fighting in the implementation trenches. One group is terrified they’ll succeed. The other is starting to ask a surprising question (or at least I am): What if even billionaires can’t disrupt the system we have built?

Take the issue of respect for the law. Put aside the headline grabbing issues for a second and live in the mundane world of implementation in government. If you’ve spent the past ten years trying to make, say, better online services for veterans, or clearer ways to understand your Medicare benefits, or even better ways to support warfighters, you’ve sat in countless -– and I mean countless — meetings where you’ve been told that something you were trying to do was illegal. Was it? Now, instead of launching your new web form or doing the user research your team needed to do, you spend weeks researching why you are now branded as dangerously lawless, only to find that either a) it was absolutely not illegal but 25 years ago someone wrote a memo that has since been interpreted as advising against this thing, b) no one had heard of the thing you were trying to do (the cloud, user research, A/B testing) and didn’t understand what you were talking about so had simply asserted it was illegal out of fear, c) there was an actual provision in law somewhere that did seem to address this and interpreting it required understanding both the actual intent of the law and the operational mechanics of the thing you were trying to do, which actually matched up pretty well or d) (and this one is uncommon) that the basic, common sense thing you were trying to do was actually illegal, which was clearly the result of a misunderstanding by policymakers or the people who draft legislation and policy on their behalf, and if they understood how their words had been operationalized, they’d be horrified. It is absolutely possible to both respect the rule of law, considering the democratic process and the peaceful transfer of power sacred, and have developed an aversion to the fetishization of law that perverts its intent. The majority of public servants I know have well earned this right.

DOGE is about to crash into this wall of weaponization of the complexities of law, policy, regulation, process, and lore in defense of the status quo and yes, the people in my community are watching. While our eyes are on potential abuses, they are also on the durability of the wall generally, and with deeply mixed emotions. It must be said: the wall is a problem. It is a problem for people who value the rule of law. It is a problem for people who care about an effective, responsive government

A few kind and well-meaning folks have suggested that I should be in charge of DOGE. The way they see it, if only someone with my values and knowledge of the situation were given the same power that Elon and Vivek have been given this would all be good. Yes, I have spent fifteen years studying roughly the same problem DOGE is now attacking (framed differently, but even I have framed it differently over the years.) But a wish for someone like me to be in charge misunderstands the nature of the problem. Diagnosis we have. The power to change we do not. Billionaires are in charge now because they have power. Elon in particular has what Ezra Klein correctly ascribed to Trump, which is lack of inhibition. Normal people like me get scared and ashamed when we’re told we’re doing something illegal. Elon does not. I wish it were different, but perhaps the job of breaking the wall has ended up with someone who is suited to doing it. The norms that constrain even people with far more power than I have make it very difficult to break through that wall.

It’s not that Dems haven’t tried the billionaire move. Obama’s Secretary of Defense Ash Carter started the Defense Innovation Board and appointed Eric Schmidt to lead it, for example. Carter’s hope was to transform the military into a modern, effective (and dare I say efficient) institution, and saw Schmidt as extra firepower for change, so to speak. Many grumped about the unaccountable power Schmidt would have, but I served on that board for four years and that concern was laughable. The DIB did a lot of great work that Eric should be proud of (I am), but it was merely advisory, set up according to Federal Advisory Committee Act rules. It didn’t help that the board quickly attracted at least one gadfly ethics-watcher, whose objections to Eric’s actions were so nitpicky and procedural she represented the worst of the Pentagon, the worst of public service, the worst of accountability. In the end, she was an annoying speed bump, but it didn’t matter. We wrote papers that said things like “the Pentagon already knows everything in this paper, but seems unable to act on it,” and watched as the Pentagon appeared to technically act on recommendations without fundamentally changing much. Other efforts like DIUx made real progress, but the dent in the machine is still tiny. I admire what Eric did on DIB. But the presence of a billionaire is certainly no guarantee of change. Mike Bloomberg has the job now, and is still proving the point. Today, we spend even more to get even less deterrence.

It's really hard to have an accurate model for why change is so hard in large bureaucratic institutions, and specifically for public sector ones, where the differences in governance really do matter. On the one hand, I do still believe that the first order problem is simply lack of attention by people with power. If politics and policy take their fair share of your oxygen, there's really just very little left for the implementation. What is available gets used on getting that particular thing done, which usually means a hack around the system instead of permanently changing it so it can be easy next time. At its worst, the hacks to get it done this time actually make it harder on an ongoing basis.

But it's not as if mere attention would solve the problem. There are entrenched interests for the status quo. It's easy to imagine these as exclusively or even mostly commercial interests, but if that were true, why would it take three years to issue guidance as anodyne as the hiring memo the Biden Administration put out this summer? Among other provisions, it declared job titles could now be listed accurately (you could say it was a software developer instead of an IT specialist) and that you could now share “certs” of candidates who qualified for positions across agencies — but only under certain circumstances, and it’s still not widely done, so we mostly lose good applicants because they apply for one position and aren’t considered for others. These and a few other changes took a smart, dedicated, caring team three years to get done. I celebrated with the people responsible because it was a huge accomplishment for them. I am grateful to them and proud of them. I am not proud of the system in which that was a huge accomplishment.

Is someone against these minor and helpful changes? You could say that the vendors profit from government’s slow and poor process for hiring, but I struggle to imagine this was high on any lobbyists’ target lists. It's far more likely that there is just a perplexing combination of legitimate and imagined reasons for caution, and review by a staggering array of stakeholders. As I talked about in my book, outsiders (and certainly the right) imagine dangerously concentrated power in the executive branch, and seek to limit it. The reality is shockingly diffuse power. The bad outcomes they are fighting to prevent — burdensome, overreaching government — are the product of exactly the conditions they help create. Neither the left nor the right really has the mental models (nor, perhaps the desire) to effectively challenge the status quo of the technocracy.

But I don't want to dismiss the difficulty of confronting commercial interests. I think it’s fair to say that in the time I’ve been working on this issue we haven’t really seen the vendor ecosystem threatened in any meaningful way. The supplier base for government tech, for example, is not all that different from when I started Code for America in 2010. Anduril has made strides at the DoD for sure, and some startups have done some interesting stuff. Companies like Nava, a public benefit corporation whose costs and outcomes in contracting with agencies like CMS and VA should make it a strong choice across civilian government, is now over 500 people. But CGI Federal, just to pick one of the incumbents, is 90,000. Lockheed Martin is 122,000. Anduril is 3,500. It’s not like we’ve seen some massive shakeup.

You can tell a credible story about the resistance to change that doesn’t require any dirty tricks on the part of the incumbents, and I’ve often left it at that, in part because the vendors don’t come at me. I don’t threaten them. But they do go at those who do threaten them. Oracle recently admitted to some very dirty tricks in trying to keep their competitors from winning the Jedi cloud contract at the DoD. (More to say about this in a future post, perhaps. Or perhaps I’ll be too scared to attract their ire. It happens.) It’s not that they succeeded in getting the contract — they’d already lost it. They were just following their scorched earth policy of ensuring that if they couldn’t have it, no one could. And by no one, they meant their competitors, but the result is that the DoD still doesn’t have the access to the cloud that Jedi architect Chris Lynch envisioned. Our national defense is that much slower and less secure because Oracle can’t lose. These are some of the conditions under which change in government is supposed to take place

We can wish that the government efficiency agenda were in the hands of someone else, but let’s not pretend that change was going to come from Democrats if they’d only had another term, and let’s not delude ourselves that change was ever going to happen politely, neatly, carefully. However we got here, we may now be in a Godzilla vs Kong world. Perhaps we’re about to get a natural experiment in which Elonzilla faces off with Larry ElliKong. One of the things we need to be ready to learn is that Elonzilla could lose. Or worse, since Elon and Larry are friends, the expected disruptive could get co-opted. And what would that say about the problem? Conjuring Elon is not bringing a gun to a knife fight. It was never a knife fight