Choke Points

/ ontheoutside / Leave a comment

Everyone talks about choke points.  The Strait of Hormuz was always there and occasionally mentioned as a theoretical issue–until we blundered into it.  So now people talk about choke points, but still as if this is something around the edges.  Hormuz affects others but not so much us.

However choke points aren’t just geographic.  Rare earths were and still remain choke points that the Chinese can use any time they want something from us.  Even the military can’t function without them. But even that’s just the beginning.

Let’s go back to a chart from our piece on trade:

🏆 Top 10 U.S. Companies by Market Capitalization (2026 estimates)

  1. NVIDIA Corporation – approx. $4.5 trillion (currently world’s largest)
  2. Apple Inc. – ~$4.0 trillion
  3. Alphabet Inc. – ~$3.8 trillion
  4. Microsoft Corporation – ~$3.6 trillion
  5. Amazon.com, Inc. – ~$2.5 trillion
  6. Meta Platforms, Inc. – ~$1.4 trillion
  7. Broadcom Inc. – ~$1.7 trillion
  8. Tesla, Inc. – ~$1.3 trillion
  9. Berkshire Hathaway Inc. – ~$1.0 trillion
  10. JPMorgan Chase & Co. – ~$0.6–0.7 trillion (approximate, rounding into the top decade range)

As we noted before, the top two companies are 100% dependent on hardware from TSMC in Taiwan.  They do the design work, and TSMC builds it.  For Nvidia that’s everything. For Apple there is some manufacturing in the US, but not the more advanced and product-defining chips.  So the two most valuable companies in the US can do nothing without Taiwan. And again that’s still just the beginning.  It also says that the entire AI infrastructure on which we are basing the future of the country and for which we are investing inconceivable sums of money is 100% dependent on hardware from Taiwan. 

That’s quite a choke point now and for the foreseeable future.  It’s not simple for China to close it, but even harder for us to stop them. Xi made very clear to Trump that he was not to get in the way of China’s plans for the future of Taiwan—and Trump immediately backed off on US arms sales.  For the record we also depleted our own munitions in the Iran war.

So where does that leave us?  We may continue to strut around as if we still owned the world, but China has the keys.  If we want the future we keep talking about, we had better learn to live in it.  We need an orderly world where all can benefit.  Of course we need allies to help make that happen. Otherwise we can just grovel and hope.

Effective Democracy

/ ontheoutside / Leave a comment

Let’s start with facts:  we live in a failed democracy that has transitioned to incompetent dictatorship. Given that kind of mess, it is worth going back to first principles to think about effective government.

First of all it should be noted that there is an intrinsic conflict of interests in any national government.  This isn’t complicated; it is basically parallel to what goes on in any corporation between the interests of labor and interests of management.  Near term they are dividing up profits, but longer term both have a common interest in the success of the company.   Successful companies are able to manage the conflict.

In government you have the economic powers-that-be versus the population as a whole.  Both have to benefit for success, but immediate interests are opposed in much the same way.  It should be emphasized that here too exclusive power to one or the other is disastrous. We’re accustomed to hearing one side of that story—uncontrolled spending on government benefits for the population will bankrupt the economic engines of the country. But an exclusive focus on the business side is equally bad and it’s not just a matter of living standards:  business interests are myopic both in terms of time scales and in terms of the environment needed for success.  You won’t have the technologies, or the people, or the physical environment necessary for the economy (and as we’ve seen recently, business people can risk bankrupting the country too!). Government has to speak for the whole picture. Even the patron saint of free enterprise—Adam Smith—was well aware of this issue.  “The government of an exclusive company of merchants is, perhaps, the worst of all governments for any country whatever.” There is nothing sacred or proven about claims that government should never interfere with the marvelous natural workings of the marketplace—that’s just self-serving propaganda for the “haves” side.

This intrinsic dichotomy is very important for effective government.  Both sides must be present but neither side can win.  That’s one of the reasons we’re in such bad shape right now.  What we have today is business capture of government—exactly what Adam Smith worried about.  To be effective government needs to provide means for functional negotiation and cooperation between both sides.  Those sides don’t map exactly to the Republicans and Democrats, but that’s pretty much what it comes down to.  Bipartisanship is not about being nice; it’s working out fundamental tradeoffs between the two sides.

That is precisely what we have lost–structurally.  There are three immediately obvious issues.  The first is the primary system.  Since primaries are partisan, candidates are chosen exclusively based on appeal to one side or the other.  That guarantees extreme positions and more importantly disenfranchises the center of the voting population.  A second example is the way partisan power is used to control legislation offered in Congress.  In the House the so-called Hastert rule only allows on the floor measures that are supported by a majority of Republicans.  In the Senate the majority leader Mitch McConnell routinely blocked anything he disagreed with—regardless of overall support.  Both rules disenfranchise the center and make the country effectively ungovernable except in extremes—so whiplashing policies are a matter of course.  Finally there is the Supreme Court: lifetime appointments plus limitless power give a huge incentive for partisan appointees.

All of this is bad news and good.  The bad news is that it isn’t clear when we’ll be in a position to fix any of it. The good news is that there are significant items that really aren’t so hard to fix.  For primaries, there are a number of possible variants, including non-partisan primaries with rank choice voting.  For the Congress, you don’t need to change the constitution to change the rules.  And there are many proposals to fix the terrible mistake that is the Supreme Court—an undemocratically-chosen body with lifetime appointments and no constraints on its power.   With a decent Supreme Court we should be able to fix gerrymandering, for example.  That is a math problem we chose to turn into a political mess.

Bipartisan cooperation is fundamental, and we can stop going out of our way to make it hard.  That way we can make the tradeoffs for the country to be governable.  Then we can move on to two other necessary and straightforward matters:  direct election of the President (the current system is grossly inequitable and invites fraud) and adding the few extra Senate seats needed to compensate the ill-represented largest states. Such measures won’t solve everything (not control of media for example), but we can make things quite a lot better.  We can make our democracy work.

It’s not so complicated–if we ever get a chance to do it.

The Fight to the Death

/ ontheoutside / Leave a comment

We should be explicit about the path we’re on.  We are engaged in a winner-takes-all fight for AI supremacy.  The operative assumption is that whoever wins will rule the world, because that country will control a version of AI so powerful that it can improve itself to be invincible.  Whoever wins will liquidate all opposition, so there can be no challenge to its power.  That’s the story, true or not. We’ve got to win.

There are many consequences to this.  To start with, no effective regulation of AI is possible, because it is impossible to say what constraints on AI development would get in the way of the fight to the death.  In particular some of the most obviously risky issues—such as autonomous military decision making—are the most untouchable. This the worst kind of arms race, where it’s not just a matter of parity.  Only victory is good enough. There are no effective limits to the amount of money it can take.

But even that is just the beginning.  Once you’re in a fight-to-the-death, any form of international cooperation becomes extraneous.  You can’t think too seriously about common interests when everyone is a mortal enemy.  That mindset is all too easy in any case, since common interests are always a hard sell (even for climate change). So we fall back on the world view we now get everyday—whoever has power deserves what he can get. With the Iran war we’ve gone a step farther, asserting that (with the closing of the Strait of Hormuz) we have absolute freedom to inflict damage on the rest of the world whenever we perceive gain for ourselves.

That this view is acceptable without much pushback is a matter of ultimate hubris.  It’s all okay, because we’re going to win.  In fact we’re not actually much interested in how international competition works or what it will really take to win.  We’ve been on top for so long that we’re entitled.  God will make us win.  That’s not an exaggeration of where we are. 

There’s a lot that we don’t know about the end to this story.  The future is never clear.  But there is one thing that is definitely true—we’re stumbling our way into real danger.  The risks are everywhere. For technology we’re certainly not necessarily on top—even today China is a serious competitor—and we’re burning bridges to the future by killing research investments and attacking all foreigners as parasites. Even for AI we’re a long way from the finish line, and it’s unclear whose paths will get there first. More generally we’re in a wildly unstable arms race with many new technologies, proliferating nuclear weapons, and no good way even to know who is ahead. Yet we’re using war as if it’s a regular element of national policy.

The only workable way to forestall conflict is viable common interest.  You don’t have war or countries laid waste if all parties recognize there’s a lot to lose.  (You can still have homicidal maniacs, but shared prosperity helps keep them out.)  The world needs order, starting with recognition that interdependence, economic and otherwise, is not going away.   So we had better fix it.  Start with economic issues—trade, climate change, AI—and then do something about war.  A fight to the death ends with just that, and who knows how many—both here and abroad—could pay.

The Revision of IPCC’s Climate Scenarios

/ ontheoutside / Leave a comment

The UN’s international climate group has revised its set of possible climate change scenarios. They eliminated the most damaging scenario, because of progress in sustainable technologies and because details of the scenario itself seemed unlikely to occur. Trump and other climate deniers have seized upon this change to claim it shows all discussion of climate change is bogus. The following piece was done as a comment to an article in the NY Times.

It seems to me one of the problems with this discussion of scenarios is that people want the scenarios to tell them something different than what the scenarios are trying to do. The scenarios are attempts to model different levels of response to the problem of climate change. There is no default case where we do nothing. For that case the only limit to the temperature is the end year in the study—the temperature would just keep increasing.

The main thing that has happened since the original scenarios is that the world has taken some measures that help: costs of wind and solar solutions have come way down to the point that those make up the majority of new electricity generation worldwide. Electric cars have become cheaper, better, and more prevalent. So it’s not surprising that the current view is somewhat more optimistic.

Where that actually leaves us can never be completely clear. I’m willing to bet the models never considered that the most powerful country in the world would be run by someone trying to sabotage the whole effort. Or that data centers would suddenly demand more power than cities. Or that the Iran war would show everyone the risks of imported oil. There will always be reassessments.

This new set of scenarios should make us appreciate the work that has been done. We can make progress against climate change. But there is much that needs to happen and very strong forces against it. This will never be easy, but it needs to be done.

The Single Worst Thing We’re Doing

/ ontheoutside / Leave a comment

With so much chaos lately it’s hard to keep track let alone prioritize the problems.  But in terms of long-term consequences there is a single worst thing we are doing.  We’re eliminating professional competence in government.

That is of course a joint project of the Supreme Court and the Trump administration.  The Court has decided that all federal employees serve at the uncontrolled whim of the President, and Trump has fired anyone he considers inadequately loyal.  There is no remaining notion of a professional career in government.  You are a political appointee, hired only to prove the President is right.

As we’ve noted here before—government is needed to support both the development of the economy and the well-being of the population.  Business by itself will do neither.  Adam Smith himself was explicit: “The government of an exclusive company of merchants is, perhaps, the worst of all governments for any country whatever.”  The job of government isn’t simple; it requires considerable technical knowledge, foresight, and understanding of how to get things done.  That’s how we produced the decades of dominance and prosperity after the Second World War.  Our success didn’t just happen.  There were people who made it happen.

That lasted until those running things got too greedy, while China followed our example with success. They figured out the coming importance of “rare earths” while we didn’t.  We’ve now reached the stage where Trump and his oligarchs have decided they don’t want to pay for anyone else:  they know all there is to know, and  they certainly don’t want to be saddled with the needs of their inferiors. So they don’t need the kind of people who enable government to do its job—because they don’t want that job to get done. They’re all-in for taking what’s there to get.

We’ve eliminated professional competence in government–the definition of decadent rot.

A Meeting in China

/ ontheoutside / Leave a comment

Let’s talk about the basics of the Trump-Xi meeting.

What does Trump think about the situation?

He’s one of the smartest people who has ever lived and can only be compared to historical predecessors such as Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great.  His perfect intuition means that he has never made a mistake.  He is happy to be meeting with one of his only two peers on the planet—Xi and Putin.  And he has brought a bunch of his underlings (i.e. executives) as symbols of his power.  So he is there to glory in shared power and to bring back something he can tout as an achievement.  Glory is the thing.

What does Xi think?

On both ideological and racial grounds he is meeting with a representative of an old elite that is well past its prime.  Furthermore it is an elite that used its power to despoil China–Xi remembers the Opium Wars and the West’s abiding confidence in racial superiority. As for Trump, he actually started a trade war when the Chinese (with superior planning) held all the cards–i.e. complete control of “rare earth” resources required even for the military.  The Iran war is another sign of undisciplined impulsiveness—wasting enormous resources to achieve more damage than benefit.  So the challenge is how to take advantage of the opportunity. Strategy is the thing.

We can be more specific about objectives.  Trump wants some kind of big splash.  That can mean many things, but Trump’s weak position limits options. He’s not going to get a solution to Iran or a permanent relief from rare earths. One prediction has been a major new commitment of Chinese investment in the US.  That’s what he demanded from Japan and the EU. It’s true those are allies—as opposed to China—but Trump’s strategy document is more positive toward his two bros than toward them. That of course fits with Trump’s much-repeated story of all the new foreign-financed factories in the US that will make everyone rich.  On the Chinese side there are two objectives: opening the US market (e.g. for cars) and weakening of US resolve on Taiwan.  Both are useful near-tern and consistent with Xi’s longer-term goal of world economic dominance.

The scary thing is that those US and Chinese objectives could match up!  A big Chinese investment satisfies both—but only one outcome is real.  “Foreign-financed factories will make everyone rich” was always a fairy tale based on the world of the 1950’s.  It’s a mismatch with the world of today and even more so with coming AI and robotics. But Chinese involvement in US markets and technology could be very real.  Competing with the Chinese industrial machine is a challenge at best, and that would give them inside access to US markets and new means to get at US intellectual property.

The Iran war showed that Trump was ready to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and deplete US military inventories, so that he could imagine himself Napoleon.  (He’s given us every other possible explanation as well.) We may be on the verge of surrendering competition to China, so that he can imagine filling the country with 1950’s factories.

We’re so used to normalizing Trump, that we’ve become numb to consequences. This isn’t playacting; it can be real.

Who Gets the Winning?

/ ontheoutside / Leave a comment

OUTCOMES OF THE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL ACT AND 2025 TARIFFS

Income DecileAvg IncomeTax CutTariff CostService Cuts
(Medicaid, SNAP)		NET RESULT% of Total Benefits
1 (poorest)$38,843+$150-$650-$1,200-$2,7000% (net loss)
2$62,457+$300-$700-$1,000-$1,4000% (net loss)
3$75,733+$500-$800-$600-$9000% (net loss)
4$89,522+$800-$900-$400-$5000% (net loss)
5 (median)$105,481+$1,200-$1,000-$400-$2000% (net loss)
6$122,119+$1,500-$1,100-$300+$100<1% (break even)
7$143,667+$2,000-$1,300-$500+$2001.8%
8$171,786+$2,500-$1,500-$200+$8007.0%
9$218,026+$4,500-$2,000-$0+$2,50021.9%
10 (richest)$517,699+$14,700-$3,400+$0+$7,90069.3%

Source: Yale Budget Lab combined analysis of Big Beautiful Bill Act + 2025 tariffs

Note: Within the top 10%, the richest 1% alone captures 43.9% of all benefits – nearly half of everything.

On Top of the Heap

/ ontheoutside / 1 Comment

We’ve been there for more than 75 years, since the end of World War II.  We are the power that maintains the world order. As such we’ve overseen a remarkable period of growing global (and our own) prosperity.  People from both political parties agree that we are the ones that make things happen.  We’re so comfortable with that role we’ve come to believe it is ours by right and permanent.

Recently though our attitudes toward that role have changed.  We’ve now decided that since we’re in position to run the world, we ought to be able to keep more of the benefits for ourselves.  So instead of maintaining that world order, we’re now in it for everything we can get—confident that the sky is now the limit.

However we have found there’s a hitch.  We attacked a medium-sized country—Iran–to put them in their place, and we didn’t win.  Not only that, an even more minor power—Ukraine—has shown itself more capable of defending our allies than we are. We still have more bombs and aircraft carriers than anyone else, but somehow that doesn’t do the job anymore.  And the problem is getting worse.  We’ve been so preoccupied with China, we haven’t noticed that the problem is not just that.

With nuclear proliferation, computer-controlled drones, and rapidly evolving AI the past pecking order no longer holds.  Instead the future looks considerably more chaotic—with murky and changing notions of international strength and weakness and risks of conflict from both overconfidence and paranoia.  When we tell everybody our new story—that powerful countries should be able to do anything they want to everybody else (because that’s the way it ought to be)—it not always so clear which side of the story is us.  And lowering the threshold to war isn’t necessarily such a great idea either.

Whether we want to admit it or not, we were pretty stupid in the Iran war.  We ignored obvious issues when we attacked, and we were so overconfident that we didn’t do even the most basic job of preparing for the fight.  We didn’t win.  But that’s not the end of it.  Our changed notion of international roles was equally stupid and blind.  We gave up on the idea of international order just when we actually need it, when we can no longer count on always ruling the roost.

Neither problem has a simple solution.  We’re going to come out of the Iran war worse off than when we started.  It’s hard even to guess what we’ll have to give up.  For the world order things are different.  We have proven that a reasonable world order can benefit everyone (at least generally).  We don’t have to be able to shakedown everyone else.  We just have to participate in recreating and inventing conditions for international success.  That must now include addressing climate change, for example, in addition to preventing war.  The job is not simple but the choice itself is: we can either help to create a livable world or suffer in nuclear-armed chaos.