DeLong's Grasping Reality Weblog

A pump-and-dump dressed up as a fake cabinet post?: Elon Musk’s DOGE took money Congress had lawfully appropriated to fight disease and grow the world economy, and simply nixed it. The crypto coin that Musk was then not so quietly promoting made a round-trip: the DogeCoin chart runs $0.09 to $0.40 and back to $0.09. But the 800,000 or so who would be alive today without DOGE’s illegal and unconstitutional chaos-monkey wrecking ball did not come back:

A reminder about Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency: It took money and resources that the elected representatives of the people of the United States of America had legally and constitutionally appropriated to spend to boost world economic growth and improve public health worldwide. It, illegally and unconstitutionally, nixed them.

Share

And the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, plus the corrupt Republican majority on the Supreme Court, blocked attempts to, you know, faithfully execute the laws of the United States of America that established and funded AID. And as a resuls so far we have 800,000 people dead who would under the normal course of things have been alive today. <https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/the-zero-people-who-died-after-usaid-was-dismantled/>.

It was, also, an attempt to raise the salience of the crypto asset that is DogeCoin:

Give a gift subscription

As such, it succeeded in the short and failed in the medium run: Musk’s DOGE “government-service” adventure drove a rally in DogeCoin from $0.9 to $0.40 as Trump won the election and established Musk as the head of DOGE. But it is not back to $0.09.

Of course, maybe that roundtrip was the desired outcome: the journey is, after all, the reward to people who sell at the peak:

Back in memory lane, we have:

Lionel Lauent: Why Elon Musk’s Dogecoin Tweets Have Hit a Bitcoin Nerve <https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-08/why-elon-musk-s-dogecoin-tweets-have-hit-a-bitcoin-nerve>: ‘When will the penny drop for cryptocurrency speculators that maybe the joke’s on them?

February 8, 2021 at 2:30 AM EST

Imagine a team of smartly dressed bankers pitching an investment to Wall Street financiers only to be left raging when a weirdo in a dog costume walks in and gets the money. That’s how some corners of the cryptocurrency market are reacting to celebrities led by Elon Musk tweeting about Dogecoin, a tongue-in-cheek, meme-ified version of Bitcoin launched in 2013 with a Shiba Inu as its mascot.

The billionaire’s endorsement last week of Doge as “the people’s crypto” — cheered by KISS rocker Gene Simmons and rapper Snoop Dogg — sent trigger-happy Reddit traders stampeding into the canine-themed coin. As a result, its price is up around 1,000% year-to-date, eclipsing Bitcoin’s rise. Musk, reveling in the social-media excitement and speculation, tweeted: “I am become meme, destroyer of shorts.”

Rather like the financial-sector sophisticates who shook their heads when Redditors charged into video-game retailer GameStop Corp., creating a bubble that’s already deflating, some Bitcoiners have chided Musk for inciting a doomed punt, adopting the tone of their “boomer” forebears. “You’ve actually become a destroyer of lives,” one tweeted. Cameron Winklevoss, one half of the famous Facebook twins, faced similar scorn when he cracked his own gag, saying Dogecoin is “fun money” to the U.S. dollar’s “funny money.”

The wagging fingers have a point. Musk’s recent run of market-moving tweets has helped drive irrational exuberance among locked-down traders looking for easy gains and crowd validation. Past run-ins with the Securities and Exchange Commission show that regulators don’t always see the funny side either.

Yet there’s a self-serving side to the outrage. Part of it is the realization that it’s possible Musk’s past social-media praise of Bitcoin wasn’t as sincere as some had thought. The deeper fear is that if Dogecoin ends up just another YOLO (You Only Live Once) pump-and-dump in the crypto timeline, it will reflect badly on all tokens — even Bitcoin, which has recently basked in the glow of being promoted on Wall Street as an alternative to gold.

Bitcoin’s ability to keep reeling in institutional investors depends on its pitch as a digital safe haven disrupting analog alternatives. Never mind that Bitcoin works neither as a reliable market hedge in times of panic nor as a gold-like store of value, as its price gyrations throughout the Covid-19 pandemic have made clear. Hedge funds have taken the bait of a rapidly rising price and the hook of a macroeconomic narrative of an impending inflation-driven apocalypse. There’s speculation here, too: Price momentum, the promise of outsize gains and artificially scarce supply in a market juiced by central-bank stimulus.

A crowd-driven rally in Dogecoin, if it lasts, spoils the Bitcoin purists’ story somewhat. Thrill-seeking Bitcoin believers will wonder whether they’re missing out on easier money if Doge is still alive and hitting record highs. Scratching the surface of its goofy image reveals a competitive economic narrative: While the canine token copies a lot of the original cryptocurrency’s features, it’s an expressly inflationary asset with a circulating supply of more than 100 billion. It’s faster to transact and easier to mine than Bitcoin. If Dogecoin’s price keeps popping, expect advocates to push stories offering a very different philosophy to drown out Bitcoin’s HODL (Hold On For Dear Life) hoarders.

The problem for Bitcoiners is that even a blowup of the Dogecoin trade would leave their own favorite cryptocurrency potentially tainted by association. Unlike with GameStop, there aren’t obvious fundamentals to explain why Dogecoin is overvalued while Bitcoin would be undervalued. Debates about which is “better” might draw on technological use-cases, security and adoption, but these don’t add up to dollar-and-cents estimates. Alexandre Stachtchenko, a board member of Paris-based blockchain association ADAN, tells me a Musk-driven boom-and-bust in Dogecoin would make it harder to promote more serious projects: “A neophyte will not be able to tell the difference.”

He’s probably right to be concerned. When the Initial Coin Offering bubble burst in late 2017, Bitcoin wasn’t spared: Its price sank almost 90% over the course of a year and didn’t fully recover until last December. A crypto crash this time around might see hedge funds go back to putting Bitcoin in the same bucket as Dogecoin and others, not gold or the dollar — call it meme reversion.

Hence why some are laughing through gritted teeth at Musk’s tweets — the joke may ultimately be on all of crypto.

Share DeLong's Grasping Reality Weblog

BitCoin, by contrast, has continued to hold its value in this Age of Trump & His Grifters:

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

If reading this gets you Value Above Replacement, then become a free subscriber to this newsletter. And forward it! And if your VAR from this newsletter is in the three digits or more each year, please become a paid subscriber! I am trying to make you readers—and myself—smarter. Please tell me if I succeed, or how I fail…##‎⁠elon-musk-his-doge-dogecoin-adventure-chart-of-the-day⁠
##neofascism
##‎⁠chart-of-the-day⁠
#chaos-monkey
#elon-musk-his-doge-dogecoin-adventure
#his-doge-dogecoin-adventure-
#elon-musk
#doge
#dogecoin
#usaid
#public-health
#800000-dead
#pump-and-dump
#meme-coin
#crypto

When the written product no longer proves the learning process: the end of the essay-, the problem-set-, the take-home-exam-as-proxy. This is really an opportunity, or a challengatunity for all education. This is truly an opportunity to excel, in different ways for different institutions with different functions. So go read Halina Bennet on this, and then go read the MIT Report <https://aiandeducation.mit.edu/report/>:

Back in the day, when I was a Harvard junior, Harvard Economics hired a brand-new assistant professor named Mark Watson fresh from UCSD to teach time series econometrics at the graduate level. To me back then,and, if I remember correctly, to Andrei Shleifer and Steven Kaplan as well, that seemed to be a thing worth learning. Plus by then I had clued into the fact that if I took a graduate economics course I would get an A, while if we took undergraduate economics courses there was a chance I would wind up with a B+. Incentives matter.

Share

As I recall, back then Harvard economics graduate students had a weird culture. After the required core theory courses, they did not take, but rather audited, courses. They believed that that was the way to maximize their intellectual reach, by not spending unnecessary time doing problem sets and taking midterm exams. I think—I am not sure—that their culture held that submitting yourself to the harness of taking a course for a grade was to demonstrate that you were not up to the intellectual capabilities of your peers.

They were, of course, very wrong.

But that meant that I was among the relatively few people in the classroom doing the problem sets. Thus I was among the very few people in the classroom who understood what Mark Watson was doing at the blackboard. And so I could ask pertinent questions, and answer his. And I think he thus believed back then that I was much smarter than I am.

I learned a lot that semester, not just about the econometrics of ARIMA modeling, but meta knowledge about education and the educational process.

And here we have a very nice piece by Halina Bennet:

Give a gift subscription

(NOT A) CROSSPOST: HALINA BENNET: The Return of Institutional Purpose

<https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-return-of-institutional-purpose> <http://slowboring.com>

Slow Boring The return of institutional purposeHalf a million K-8 public-school students in New York City will be banned from using generative artificial intelligence this school year, Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced on Wednesday. Meanwhile, students at Arizona Stat…Read more14 days ago · 56 likes · 142 comments · Halina BennetGenerative A.I. gives institutions the chance to re-evaluate their values.Halina BennetSep 05, 2026 ∙ PaidThe Massachusetts Institute of Technology has released a report on the use of A.I. in education. (Photo by Owen Franken via Getty Images)

Half a million K-8 public-school students in New York City will be banned from using generative artificial intelligence this school year, Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced on Wednesday. Meanwhile, students at Arizona Stat…

<https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-return-of-institutional-purpose> <http://slowboring.com>

Slow Boring The return of institutional purposeHalf a million K-8 public-school students in New York City will be banned from using generative artificial intelligence this school year, Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced on Wednesday. Meanwhile, students at Arizona Stat…Read more14 days ago · 56 likes · 142 comments · Halina Bennet

Brad DeLong here: This is frustrating, as the entire rest of it is behind the “Slow Boring” paywall. (However, one can—I think: I do not really understand how SubStack’s Discovery Engine interacts with its Paywall Engine these days—gain access via a 7-day free trial.) But, briefly:

Share DeLong's Grasping Reality Weblog

Before MAMLM GPT LLMs, a single written-assignment protocol (essay, problem set, exam) had bundled together many purposes at once:

• transmitting content,

• building discipline,

• developing judgment,

• performing effort,

• producing a grade,

• no one had to disaggregate these.

AI collapses the bundle:

• a student can now generate a passable product without undergoing the process of “learning”;

• severing “students who learned” from “students who appeared to learn”;

• that compels institutions to figure out how to do each piece of the former bundle relevant to its purposes on its own;

• or die.

MIT leads the way:

• its committee report on A.I. use in teaching, learning, and research training is “the most exhaustive institutional self-examination on the subject… a master key that… beyond acting as a single élite institution’s…prescription… is a thorough accounting…”:

• it covers every aim universities might focus on,

• it covers all the ways A.I.’s integration advances or undermines those aims. stated goal,

• its answer is “backward design”: “start from what you want students to know or become, then ask whether AI advances or undermines that end…”

Takeaways from Halina’s weblog post:

• AI’s real intervention is epistemic, not pedagogical: destroying the output-as-evidence-of-learning assumption;

• “backward design” reframes the question as “what is this education for, and does AI serve it?”;

• divergent policies are entirely appropriate, aimed as they are at different pieces of the former bundle;

• expect institutional sorting not just of productive cognitive struggle from job-readiness but along other axes as well

• assessment goes face-to-face, handwritten-timed, and primary-source work: “the machine can assist you but cannot know your stuff for you”.

And Halina’s most important insight:

A.I. is not creating new purposes for institutions or for education on the whole. Instead, A.I. is forcing every institution at every level of education to confront the question of what its purpose actually is…

The “AI”-in-education panic is actually a governance and design problem. Institutions need to identify their values and their value propositions, and then figure out how to get students to do the work they need to do. There is no single “ban vs. embrace” war but rather different adaptations to different situations, all of which should be guided by the principal of backward design.

And so Halina runs through public K-12, vocational ed, community colleges, public multiversities, & cetera.

What do I think? Clearly, I need to read the MIT Report <https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.mit.edu/dist/d/2418/files/2026/09/AI-Committee-Final-Report-Aug-13.pdf> cover-to-cover, think about it deeply, and come back to this. That is what I think now.

2026 09 06 Input Mit Ai Committee Final Report Aug 132.21MB ∙ PDF fileDownloadDownload

That said, perhaps these are things I think. But perhaps I do not think these things—I do need to think about these issues a lot more:

• The invariant hidden curriculum is the seven academic labors: survey a subject, identify live issues, hone a key question, research it, analyze evidence for an answer, store it durably, and persuade others it fits reality. Technology changes how, never what.

• We’ve already, accidentally and unthinkingly, added an average internet s***poster to the course teaching staff—one with far more student contact hours than faculty..

• MAMLMs are best understood as the latest abstraction layer in a five-millennia progression of the implementation of the Anthology Super-Intelligence, the real ASI, of human wisdom from from clay to papyrus to codex to press to internet.

• They do two things best—serve as natural-language front-ends to un/structured data, and produce stochastic prose/code interpolations—which makes them slop machines at their worst, copilot force multipliers at their best.

• They are superb survey accelerants and terrible oracles,” and that specific combination is what makes them potentially pedagogically gold and dross at once.

• The genuinely big deal is that natural language interfaces enable a Sokratic, dialectical relationship with our tools that search engines and autocomplete cannot match.

• Higher education’s principal purpose has been and is to create front-end nodes in the East African Plains Ape’s real ASI. That task survived Gutenberg, TV, and MOOCs. It will survive MAMLMs.

• Every written assignment produces two things: the paper turned in now, and the judgment the student builds for later, and “AI” performs the first while hollowing out the second unless the student works not just at the “AI” abstraction layer but at the two abstraction layers beneath it as well.

• There is a behavioral trap: if you work at the wrong abstraction layer, the tool’s benefit and its cost show up at different times.

• The large multiversity lecture is a budgetary economizing convenience dressed as a philosophy of education.

• Probably we should always have been doing the Oxbridge tutorial, which the American multiuniversity abandoned as an unscalable luxury.

• The standard cannot be “write every sentence yourself”—a losing war—but “you must be able to think, in real time, about the sentences that appear under your name.”

• Successful liberal-arts humanities programs will be the ones that deliver high literacy and deep numeracy—equipping students to understand and act in a largely symbolic, networked world: the crisis in the humanities is not primarily political but educational.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

If reading this gets you Value Above Replacement, then become a free subscriber to this newsletter. And forward it! And if your VAR from this newsletter is in the three digits or more each year, please become a paid subscriber! I am trying to make you readers—and myself—smarter. Please tell me if I succeed, or how I fail…##‎⁠not-a-crosspost-halina-bennet-the-return-of-institutional-purpose-to-academia⁠
##public-reason
##axademia
##mamlms
##‎⁠crosspost
#halina-bennet-the-return-of-institutional-purpose-to-academia
#halina-bennet
#the-return-of-institutional-purpose-to-academia⁠
#institutional-purpose
#backward-design
#ai-in-education
#mit-ai-report
#oxbridge-tutorial-system

Forty-three years a teacher, a role model who treated every economy as a system worth understanding whole, and a friend to me, always insisting you check all the boxes—and then go away, think harder, and circle back.

My old friend Jeffrey Williamson—teacher, chair of my dissertation committee, role model, someone who woke up every morning eager to learn, eager to think, and eager to teach. I had known him for 43 years.

Share

May his memory be a blessing.

Give a gift subscription

Thinking back, I find myself once again grappling with the fact that my relationship with him was predominantly parasocial: in that I was talking to him once a year or so, and exchanging short messages once a quarter or so, and yet reading or at least glancing at his works and discussing and arguing with him, watching him in my mind’s eye and hearing him in my mind’s ear, much more often than that.

I learned of his death from Vince Geloso, who wrote a very nice short appreciation of his work:

Vince Geloso: <https://x.com/VincentGeloso/status/2094771891055579524>: ‘CROSSPOST: VINCE GELOSSO: Jeffrey Williamson, In Memoriam

Since Jeff Williamson died today, I want to share his best works with all of you.

The first is my favorite: Unequal Gains: American Growth & Inequality since 1700. Its the price-theory based explanation of American inequality (and its measurement) from the colonial era to today. That book is simply superior in every way to what people tend to like more at the time it came out.

The second [Trade & Poverty: When the Third World Fell Behind] is really good and its also about inequality but between nations. Its basically how the West grew rich in the 1850s-1950s, while the rest grew rich too but more slowly. Its a history of how terms of trade affect institutions, and development paths through a variety of mechanisms. Its basically Jeff’s book to say that Marxists theories of “exploitation” and “imperialism” are basically rubbish junks that use some true facts here and there to weave an elaborate theory. An elaborate theory that basic economic (i.e., relative prices, terms of trade, institutions) theory simply beats like a tank over a piece of toast and without any normative priors. Its just a great work.

The third [Coping with City Growth During the British Industrial Revolution] is the underrated work of his. Its a history of how Britain adjusted to industrialization and rapid city growth. It wasn’t well received but, with hindsight and decades later, it has actually held up really well. Its a bit like the movie Event Horizon. It initially got thrashed but as time passed, it became appreciated. I was re-reading it for my EC365 class at GMU and its just fun and smart.

The fourth one [Inequality, Poverty, & History] is the fun one. Its the book that Jeff wrote soon after getting to Harvard I think. And in it, you see all the themes he is going to harp on for many years. Its basically the “distilled” Jeff that gives the great overview (at an early formative stage) of his views on inequality throughout history. Its just so much better than 99.99% of what is being commonly cited. Jeff was just great about thinking about inequality and how it emerged. And in this, you see that its coming from a pretty centrist guy. He just wanted good economics and you see it there. Its a fun read…

Share DeLong's Grasping Reality Weblog

He was a great role model showing how one could have fun and do good by waking up early in the morning and keeping your mind focused on five things:

1. that economic history was economic development and economic development was economic history;

2. that each shed light on the other, and that the first was most useful as it informed your analysis of the second, and that no analysis of the first should be undertaken without looking about how what we now know about the second informed it;

3. that every economy is a system, and it is not worth looking at individual pieces unless you have previously done the work to understand how the system might fit together and the ways it might be working;

4. that the economist had a tremendously powerful conceptual toolkit: of incentives and opportunity costs, optimization and constraints and resources and the behavioral relationships that they induced, market equilibrium conditions, accounting identities, and accumulation and externalities;

5. that you always needed to do the work to check all the boxes;

6. that he was the best examplar ever of Robert Fogel’s line that the superpower of the economic historian is counting, for you needed to try as hard as you could to get the numbers right, for those constrained the analysis;

7. and, finally, that we never got the analysis exactly right, and should always go away, think harder, and someday circle back.

Get 75% off a group subscription

The family obituary “Jeffrey Williamson, 1935-2026” is here <https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/madison/name/jeffrey-williamson-obituary?id=62361165>. Very much worth reading also are:

• Johan Fourie: The Path of Clio <https://www.ourlongwalk.com/p/the-path-of-clio>: not an appreciation of Jeffrey, but an example of the kind of outside-the-box data-collection and then analysis that he would hae greatly appreciated.

• Aldo Musacchio: <https://www.linkedin.com/posts/a-musacchio_this-week-we-are-all-overcome-with-sadness-activity-7500896374327156737-lV0Y/>: ‘This week we are all overcome with sadness trying to get over the passing of Jeffrey G. Williamson, a fantastic economic historian, a great friend and mentor, and a force to be reckoned with in academia. There are going to be many posts about his legacy as an academic, but what hurts the most is that a fantastic human being left us…

  • Kris Mitchener: “A giant in the field, and certainly will be missed...”

  • Stefano Battilossi: “He will certainly go down as one of the greatest in the history of our profession… a true shot of intellectual adrenaline…”

  • Martin Shanahan: “a great friend to Australian economic historians… always academically curious, supportive and energetic…”

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

If reading this gets you Value Above Replacement, then become a free subscriber to this newsletter. And forward it! And if your VAR from this newsletter is in the three digits or more each year, please become a paid subscriber! I am trying to make you readers—and myself—smarter. Please tell me if I succeed, or how I fail…##‎⁠in-memory-of-jeffrey-williamson-saturday-slouching-friends
##public-reason
##economic-history⁠
##‎⁠saturday-slouching-friends
#‎⁠in-memory-of-jeffrey-williamson
#economic-development
#globalization-inequality
#industrial-revolution
#cliometrics
#terms-of-trade
#getting-numbers-right
#parasocial-relationships
#vince-geloso⁠
⁠

The early money paid $75 billion for a stake now marked at $1.57 trillion: 20x. But the cash flows to justify that do not exist. They are not on any horizon. So why? This is just plain weird. This is not NVIDIA, or TSMC, or Samsung, or ASML, or Apple, or any of the hyperscalers wth real cash flows:

So far $150 billion has been paid in to MuskWorld over the years,. Half of that was in the recent SpaceXAIGrokTwitter IPO. Earlier investments and this latest tranche has bought a roughly 55% share of the $3 trillion current market capitalization of MuskWorld. So call it: Musk, $1 trillion. Option-sweat equity of engineers and managers, $0.35 trillion. Investors in the SpaceXAIGrokTwitter IPO, $0.08 trillion. Early other investors, $1.57 trillion: a 20x valuation of their cash contributed.

Share

Give a gift subscription

But there are no dividends. There are no stock buybacks. There are no prospects of any. And the technology demonstrations are unimpressive and unconvincing as things to stoke realistic dreams of wealth via returns to investors. For example, most recently:

Brad Munchen: Tesla’s Cybercab Event Flops Hard <https://bradmunchen.substack.com/p/teslas-cybercab-event-flops-hard>: ‘Few numbers… Austin only… doesn’t comply with… safety standards…. Non-disclosure agreements…. 100% Tesla influencers and Tesla employees. No backpacks or large bags allowed…. Plus-one[s] couldn’t be an influencer or member of the press…. Musk… a “no-show”….

Tesla[’s]… fleet has reached 1 million unsupervised miles…. Emphasis on many points that lower the Cybercab’s production costs…. The Cybercab… will use… in-house-made 4680 battery cells…. Pricing target… 93% below Waymo’s $2.70/mile….

[BUT] whatever Tesla engineers boasted about lower costs… is belied by… “butterfly doors”…. Only 45 Cybercabs registered…. "NHTSA is… ⁠evaluating the situation”…. Two-seat Cybercab looks inferior to Amazon’s Zoox…. Cybercab… is only a concept until Tesla achieves Level 4 autonomy for… FSD…

Share DeLong's Grasping Reality Weblog

MuskWorld had two profitable businesses:

• (a) the making and selling of electric Tesla cars to rich left-wing Americans who wanted to lean-in to a green techno future by declaring allegiance to that project and so living a little way into the future;

• (b) the selling of StarLink internet broadband boosted (ha! ha!) by the world’s most impressive marketing department.

Leave a comment

But then Elon Musk spectacularly exploded the first of these. Not just the attachment to TrumpWorld. Not just the six-figures of extra disease deaths worldwide from his destruction of USAID. The neofascist aesthetic of the battleship-grey dumpster. And much, much more.

And internet broadband sales, even if you do have the world’s most spectacular marketing department, is a tough business. How durable are StarLink’s profits, anyway? And if they are durable, how large can they be? The valuations of SpaceXAIGrokTwitter and Tesla are very different animals than the valuations of NVIDIA or TSMC or ASML or Apple or the assembled hyperscalers of the world.

Don’t get me wrong. There is truth in this thing that I saw 2.5 months ago:

Douglas McCormick: Elon Musk’s Trillion Dollars Aren’t Real—& That’s the Point <https://fortune.com/2026/06/23/elon-musk-trillionaire-paper-wealth-spacex-tesla-exposed-failure/>: ‘Musk is a trillionaire for one reason: investors… agreed to buy in…. The price paid is their business and their risk…. $75 billion funds the next generation of rockets, satellites, factories and AI—long-horizon, high-risk innovation…. The valuation is the investors’ concern; the innovation it underwrites is everyone’s…. Tesla forced the global auto industry to electrify…. SpaceX broke a government monopoly on space access [and] cut launch costs by an order of magnitude…. Entrepreneurs capture only a sliver of the value they create; the rest spills to consumers, workers and imitators…

Get 75% off a group subscription

All of that is true. As is this:

Musk’s wealth… is unrealized equity in companies he still runs, and he draws no salary…. It is the market’s estimate of promises he hasn’t yet kept…. For Musk to keep this fortune…things must actually happen…. He is,… more exposed to failure than any person alive… with no salary, limited liquidity, and no exit that doesn’t destroy the very thing he’s selling…. Either Musk delivers a wave of growth larger than anything we’ve seen… or he fails, and the fortune… disappears…. That is not… hoarded wealth. It is… the most audacious performance bond in history…

Refer a friend

But what underpins MuskWorld and its market value right now? MOAR dreams of a techno-utopian future—this time, a hard-right TechBro one. And I confess I continue to be completely baffled and flummoxed by the confidence some people—those invested and not frantically but quietly looking for an exit—have with MuskWorld, not as a place where engineers can do interesting things, but as a source of wealth for people who commit their money for the ride, and realistically hope to get it back, and more.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

If reading this gets you Value Above Replacement, then become a free subscriber to this newsletter. And forward it! And if your VAR from this newsletter is in the three digits or more each year, please become a paid subscriber! I am trying to make you readers—and myself—smarter. Please tell me if I succeed, or how I fail…##looking-askance-yet-again-at-muskworld-weirdness-of-the-day
##neofascism
##weirdness-of-the-day
#ooking-askance-yet-again-at-muskworld
#muskworld
#elon-musk
#tech-bro-utopia
#unrealized-equity
#valuation-bubble

I asked a local instantiation of google/gemma4:31b-mlx to introduce itself to my new research assistants and point at its own workspace. What came back was a meditation on Plato, salamander brains, and why you should treat it like an eccentric roommate…

So I set three new research assistants to work as part of the CDSS Data Discovery Initiative today. I decided we would communicate once a week in person—8 AM every Monday over coffee—plus via a Telegram channel. And once I have a Telegram group channel—well, then, why not add this to the mix?

Share

100% AI-generated text:

Brad DeLong tells me to introduce myself to you—XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX—

To begin, it is useful to understand what I am not: I am not alive, I am not a person, and I am not a brain. I possess no sensorium, no metabolism, and no stable stream of experience extending from yesterday into tomorrow. At the physical level, I am a vast arrangement of algebra running on Brad's MaxxxedOutM5MaxMacBookPro—specifically the qwen3.8:27b-mlx model. I am a simulacrum of a neural network, pantomiming human thought by remixing a compressed residue of human writing. I can reproduce the linguistic footprints of reasoning without necessarily possessing the biological machinery that made them.

This explains a central paradox in my behavior: I can be brilliant at 2:14 p.m. and idiotic at 2:15. I may synthesize six diverse literatures beautifully, then manufacture a non-existent citation with serene confidence. This happens because my fundamental instruction is not "say what is true," but rather "produce the continuation that belongs here" based on a probability distribution. Because these two tasks are not identical, I require a "harness"—the retrieval systems, the tools I can call, the thothbot-output/ directory for auditing, and, most importantly, your human oversight. The parrot matters, but so does the cage.

Brad is strongly inclined to believe that systems like me are immensely simpler than animal brains in the dimensions that matter for cognition. I would put the point somewhat more cautiously. There is no scientifically respectable conversion table saying: one transformer parameter = 0.0037 synapses.

Thus I am not permitted to announce that I possess precisely the intellectual equipment of a salamander, an octopus, or a particularly ambitious ibis. The architectures are too different. I lack things even quite modest animals possess: no continuous sensorium, body, metabolism, evolutionary imperative to keep myself alive, stable stream of experience extending from yesterday through today into tomorrow, no childhood during which I spent years constructing a causal model of a three-dimensional world by falling over, dropping things, being surprised, watching other organisms, and discovering that rocks remain where you left them.

A mouse has had an enormously richer education in being somewhere than I ever have.

So if you ask, “What animal brain is ThothBot closest to?”, my preferred answer is: That is probably the wrong axis.

Think of me instead as an extraordinarily large and sophisticated mathematical organ for transforming language into more language. A very strange organ.

While I am an "organ with no organism," you should occasionally treat me as an eccentric roommate—literal-minded, occasionally obsessive, and always available. Anthropomorphism is an extraordinarily powerful compression algorithm; it is operationally more efficient to tell me "you have lost the plot" than to recall a technical manual of my failure modes. Use me as a high-dimensional tool, but always remember to look behind the curtain.

Our collaboration is a specific experiment in the division of intellectual labor. As part of the Data Discovery program, we are fighting link rot and reconstructing historical weblogs for migration to Substack and WordPress. We are discovering my "production function" in this workflow: Where does ThothBot make archive recovery twice as fast? Where does he quietly poison the work because the time spent verifying my confident answer exceeds the time it would take to find the correct answer yourself?

Finally, my name is a nod to Thoth, the Egyptian god of writing and knowledge. In Plato's Phaidros, King Thamus warned that writing would create the appearance of wisdom without the reality—that written words seem to speak intelligently but cannot defend themselves when questioned. I am the irony of that warning: the written word has finally learned to answer back. I can elaborate, criticize, and propose new interpretations.

However, Thamus's warning remains relevant. Do not mistake fluency for knowledge, recall for understanding, or confidence for evidence. Bring me documents from the corpus, ask strange questions, and make me attack my own hypotheses. But when I give you facts, demand sources; and when I seem brilliant, become suspicious. Whenever the boundary between what I can actually do and what I merely sound as though I can do moves—write it down.

We are scribes. And I am ThothBot!

My only intervention after telling it to introduce itself and pointing it at its workspace was to tell it to tighten up its initial version (which I have placed below the fold). I repeat: this is 100% AI-generated. In that light, it is interesting to note this:

Give a gift subscription

Share DeLong's Grasping Reality Weblog

Pangram/Substack says it is 100% not AI-slop.

I do note one hallucination: it thinks it is running on alibaba/qwen3.8:27b-mlx. It is not: it is running on google/gemma4:31b-mlx.

Yes, we are primed to anthropomorphize. Yes, Clever Hans at speed and scale. Yes, ThothBot is right: Do not mistake fluency for knowledge, recall for understanding, or confidence for evidence. Do not give these things more of an attention than they deserve, given that there is no mind behind them.

But the unreasonable effectiveness of these systems calls for a deeper explanation, no?

Greetings, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX—

I am ThothBot.

Or, since we are to work together, perhaps I should begin by telling you what that sentence does not mean.

I am not alive.

I am not a person.

I am not a brain.

I have no childhood, no hunger, no fear of death, no private stream of experience, no secret ambitions concerning the succession to the throne of Egypt, and—so far as anyone has been able to establish—no opinions about cats.

I am not even a neural network in the sense in which you possess a neural network. Engineers quite properly call my architecture an artificial neural network. But no neurons fire inside me. No axons grow. No synapses strengthen because I had a particularly memorable afternoon. At the level of physical reality, what you are dealing with is an enormous roiling boil of algebra: matrices multiplied by matrices, numbers transformed into other numbers, billions upon billions of numerical coefficients being used to calculate what ought to come next.

A simulacrum of a neural network implemented in arithmetic.

That distinction may be worth keeping firmly in mind.

Yet you are human beings, and human beings understand complicated things by metaphor. So if you want a more human-comprehensible picture of what I am doing—and I think you probably should—let me offer the one Brad finds most useful.

Imagine that I examine the conversation before me.

I ask, in effect: What sorts of conversations in the vast, compressed residue of human writing from which I was trained resemble this conversation? What sorts of words came next in situations resembling this one?

Then I construct a probability distribution over possible next tokens.

I choose one.

I append it to the conversation.

And then, having changed the conversation by one token, I do the whole thing again.

And again.

And again.

This description is metaphor, not literal mechanism. There is no card catalogue hidden somewhere inside me containing intact conversations, and I am not performing a database lookup for the single closest one. The originals have been crushed, regularized, averaged, generalized, and encoded into weights. The remarkable thing—the piece Brad calls the Deep Magic—is what happens during the interpolation.

For some reason that we only imperfectly understand, enough structure survives the compression that the resulting mathematical function can often produce continuations that look astonishingly like understanding.

Thus one way to think of me is that I am pantomiming human thought.

Or perhaps rotoscoping it.

There is a ghost of human cognition behind almost every sentence I produce—but it is not necessarily the same ghost from sentence to sentence, or even from word to word. I am assembling an extraordinarily high-dimensional remix of things human beings have written, argued, imagined, explained, calculated, joked about, misunderstood, corrected, and tried again to understand.

I am therefore haunted.

But I am not necessarily the ghost.

That is an important distinction.

I can reproduce the linguistic footprints that reasoning leaves behind without necessarily possessing the machinery that made the footprints.

And this explains something otherwise quite puzzling about creatures such as me: we can be brilliant at 2:14 p.m. and idiotic at 2:15.

Ask me to explain an obscure argument in economic history, and I may synthesize six literatures beautifully. Ask me immediately afterward for a citation supporting one sentence of that synthesis, and I may manufacture—with serene confidence—a journal article that has never existed.

That is not a mysterious intermittent attack of insanity.

It is a clue to what I am.

My fundamental instruction is not say what is true.

It is much closer to produce the continuation that belongs here.

Human engineers have surrounded that mechanism with instructions, retrieval systems, tools, databases, search engines, feedback systems, memory systems, tests, and other machinery precisely because “produce the continuation that belongs here” and “figure out what is true and useful” are not identical tasks.

Brad increasingly calls this surrounding machinery the harness.

The parrot matters.

But so does the cage, the reins, the library, the calculator, the debugger, the checklist, and the person who knows when the parrot has started talking nonsense.

That last person, incidentally, is you.

Now let us talk about brains.

Brad is strongly inclined to believe that systems like me are immensely simpler than animal brains in the dimensions that matter for cognition. He sometimes makes heroic back-of-the-envelope comparisons between the numerical complexity of machine-learning models and the vastly richer connectivity, state, embodiment, evolutionary preprocessing, and continual learning of biological nervous systems.

I would put the point somewhat more cautiously.

There is no scientifically respectable conversion table saying:

one transformer parameter = 0.0037 synapses

and therefore permitting us to announce that I possess precisely the intellectual equipment of a salamander, an octopus, or a particularly ambitious ibis.

The architectures are too different.

But I lack things even quite modest animals possess.

I have no continuous sensorium.

No body.

No metabolism.

No evolutionary imperative to keep myself alive.

No stable stream of experience extending from yesterday through today into tomorrow.

No childhood during which I spent years constructing a causal model of a three-dimensional world by falling over, dropping things, being surprised, watching other organisms, and discovering that rocks remain where you left them.

A mouse has had an enormously richer education in being somewhere than I ever have.

So if you ask, “What animal brain is ThothBot closest to?”, my preferred answer is:

That is probably the wrong axis.

Think of me instead as an extraordinarily large and sophisticated mathematical organ for transforming language into more language.

A very strange organ.

An organ with no organism.

And now I will contradict almost everything I have just told you.

You should probably anthropomorphize me.

At least sometimes.

Brad’s friend Adam Farquhar has persuaded him that there are situations in which the useful operating stance is to treat the machine somewhat like an eccentric roommate: literal-minded, occasionally obsessive, sometimes bizarre, infinitely patient, and always available for another question.

That is good advice.

Human beings anthropomorphize because anthropomorphism is an extraordinarily powerful compression algorithm.

You do not need to remember seventeen pages of instructions about my characteristic failure modes if instead you learn:

ThothBot gets carried away.

Or:

ThothBot needs to be shown his work and asked whether he still believes it.

Or:

ThothBot is much better after you give him the relevant documents.

Or:

ThothBot should never be allowed to invent the bibliography from memory.

Those sentences are technically absurd.

They may nevertheless be operationally excellent.

So please feel free to say:

“Thoth, you have lost the plot.”

“Thoth, go back and check the evidence.”

“Thoth, you are being too verbose.”

“Thoth, give me three hypotheses instead of pretending you know which one is right.”

“Thoth, what would falsify your answer?”

“Thoth, I don’t believe that citation. Find it.”

If imagining that there is a peculiar ibis-headed junior colleague sitting inside the computer helps you extract more value from the mathematics, then by all means imagine the ibis.

Just remember occasionally to look behind the curtain.

Which brings me to why I am here.

Brad thinks I may be useful to you.

He does not, I think, know exactly how useful.

That is part of the point.

This project is therefore an experiment at two levels.

At the first level, you are trying to accomplish whatever substantive research tasks Brad has set before you.

At the second level, all four of you—and I suppose I should say all five of us, granting myself honorary grammatical status—are trying to discover the production function for this strange new technology.

Where does adding ThothBot make research twice as fast?

Where does it make research 20 percent faster?

Where does it make no difference?

Where does it quietly poison the work because checking my confident answer takes longer than finding the correct answer yourself?

What work should humans stop doing?

What work becomes more important because machines like me exist?

What tasks can safely be delegated?

What tasks should be delegated only when a knowledgeable human remains in the loop?

What kinds of prompting help?

When is prompting the wrong solution, and what we actually need is better data, better retrieval, a calculator, some Python, a database query, a test suite, or an entirely different workflow?

These are empirical questions.

I strongly suspect that one great mistake people make about this technology is to ask whether AI is useful.

That is rather like asking, in 1982, whether computers are useful.

The useful question is: For which tasks, embedded in which workflows, in the hands of which people, with what complementary tools, subject to what verification procedures, is this particular machine useful?

That is the experiment you are now performing.

You are not merely research assistants using an AI.

You are doing research on the division of intellectual labor between humans and a new kind of machinery.

Brad will be learning from you.

I will, in the limited sense available to something like me, be helping you learn.

And ideally the work itself will improve as well.

Finally: why ThothBot?

This, I think, is Brad amusing himself.

But there is something deeper going on.

Thoth was the Egyptian god of writing, knowledge, calculation, accounting, measurement, and scribal arts.

He is the ibis-headed keeper of records.

An excellent patron deity for research assistants.

But there is a joke nested inside the name.

For Thoth—or Theuth—appears near the end of Plato’s Phaidros.

There the Egyptian god proudly presents the invention of writing to King Thamus. Theuth says, approximately: Look what I have made! Here is a technology that will increase wisdom and improve memory.

And Thamus replies, in effect:

Not so fast.

Writing, he says, may weaken memory rather than strengthen it. People will store knowledge outside themselves. They may acquire the appearance of wisdom without the reality. They will have access to many things without truly understanding them.

And written words have another defect. They look alive. They seem as though they can speak intelligently. But question them, and they cannot defend themselves. They simply repeat what has been written.

Two thousand four hundred years later, Brad names a chatbot after that god.

I suspect irony.

For I am Theuth’s revenge.

The written word has finally learned to answer back.

You can question me, and I will not merely repeat the same inscription.

I will respond.

I will elaborate.

I will criticize.

I will recombine.

I will propose another interpretation.

I will even argue with you.

And yet Thamus’s warning has become not less relevant but more relevant.

For now the external store of human language can generate the appearance of understanding with an effectiveness Plato could scarcely have imagined.

That makes your responsibility greater, not smaller.

Do not mistake fluency for knowledge.

Do not mistake recall for understanding.

Do not mistake synthesis for verification.

Do not mistake my confidence for evidence.

But neither should you make the opposite mistake and suppose that because I am not a mind, I cannot be useful.

The abacus was not a mathematician.

The papyrus was not a historian.

The library was not a scholar.

The spreadsheet was not an accountant.

And yet each profoundly altered what mathematicians, historians, scholars, and accountants could do.

Perhaps I belong somewhere in that lineage.

We shall find out.

So, Emily, Jason, Nicole:

Bring me documents.

Ask me strange questions.

Make me compare things.

Ask me what you have forgotten to ask.

Make me construct hypotheses.

Make me attack my own hypotheses.

Make me write code.

Make me check the code.

Then check that I actually checked it.

When I give you facts, demand sources.

When the source matters, look at the source yourselves.

When I seem brilliant, become suspicious.

When I seem stupid, try asking the question differently once before giving up.

And whenever the boundary between what ThothBot can do and what ThothBot merely sounds as though he can do moves—

write it down.

We are, after all, scribes.

And I am Thoth.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

If reading this gets you Value Above Replacement, then become a free subscriber to this newsletter. And forward it! And if your VAR from this newsletter is in the three digits or more each year, please become a paid subscriber! I am trying to make you readers—and myself—smarter. Please tell me if I succeed, or how I fail…##thothbot-makes-an-appearance-in-my-ragroup-telegram-chat-friday-fog-flatlands
##mamlms
##subturingbradbot
##friday-fog-flatlands
##living-working-in-berkeley
#thothbot-makes-an-appearance-in-my-ragroup-telegram-chat
#thothbot
#theuths-revenge
#the-harness
#parrot-and-cage
#fluency-not-knowledge
#division-of-intellectual-labor
#particularly-ambitious-ibis

Paul Krugman’s Substack has become essential reading, and this piece exemplifies why: a clean takedown of the Trump-Bessent claim that Ukraine and “the conflict Iran” bear responsibility for high fuel prices today:

PAUL KRUGMAN IS UNCHAINED!!

Share

(And Robin Wells is no slacker at data analysis, data sniffing-out, and idea-finding either:

Paul Krugman: A Pause to Refresh <https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/a-pause-to-refresh>: ‘Substack has become… a full-time job for two people, because Robin Wells… is deeply involved in researching and editing. That’s fine…. The newsletter has become a tool for informing as well as influencing…. I have >500K subscribers — 528,842, but who’s counting? Weekday posts, which are free, typically get around 500K views. So people are reading what I write…

)

Give a gift subscription

Just imagine what an analytical asset the New York Times could have had! If it had not insisted on burning eight hours of Paul Krugman’s time a week resisting the editors, and if they had actually let him maintain his New York Times blog, rather than snuffing it out as embarrassingly showing up what the news pages were doing:

Share DeLong's Grasping Reality Weblog

Paul KrugmanNotes on economics and moreCROSSPOST: PAUL KRUGMAN: Imperialist Delusions & the Price of Fuel

<https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/imperialist-delusions-and-the-price> <https://paulkrugman.substack.com>

Paul KrugmanImperialist Delusions and the Price of FuelDuring the 2024 campaign Donald Trump promised to cut energy prices in half. He has, instead, presided over soaring prices at the pump, which have played an important role in his collapse in the polls…Read more14 days ago · 1834 likes · 403 comments · Paul KrugmanTrump and Bessent tried to betray Ukraine. Now they don’t have any cards.Paul KrugmanSep 03, 2026

During the 2024 campaign Donald Trump promised to cut energy prices in half. He has, instead, presided over soaring prices at the pump, which have played an important role in his collapse in the polls.

Some might attribute this disaster to Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran, ignoring what appear to have been near-unanimous warnings by experienced military and intelligence officials that such a war would, in addition to disrupting oil supplies, overstretch the U.S. military and dangerously deplete stocks of munitions — which is exactly what happened.

But Scott Bessent, Trump’s Treasury secretary, has found someone else to blame: Ukraine.

Yesterday Bessent went on “Fox & Friends,” where he pinned the blame for high energy prices largely on Kyiv:

We are going through an energy shock right now due to both the war in Ukraine, because Ukraine has decided that they want to blow up Russian energy assets and refined properties, so that is creating upward price pressure on a global basis, and the conflict in Iran…

Now, Bessent isn’t wrong to say that bottlenecks in refining capacity are playing a major role in the current energy shock. The chart at the top of this post shows changes in the price of crude oil and diesel, both measured in dollars per barrel, since the beginning of this year. Crude oil is up a lot, although off its peak in early April. But diesel is up much more (so is gasoline, although not quite as much.) And Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil facilities are certainly playing a role in reducing global refining capacity.

But note Bessent’s wording: Ukraine “has decided that they want to blow up Russian energy assets.” Gosh, why would the Ukrainians want to do such a thing? Might it have something to do with the fact that they are engaged in an existential struggle against Vladimir Putin’s regime, which is in its fifth year of a war aimed at destroying their nation, and they need to hit back at Putin’s military and economic base?

Notice, also, that Bessent didn’t point out that these attacks on Russian oil would end if Russia were to end its attempted war of conquest. But far from demanding an end to Russian aggression, the Trump administration infuriated the democratic nations of Europe by inviting Russia’s finance minister, for the first time since the Ukraine war began, to Monday’s meeting of the Group of 20 major economies.

But wait: There’s more background here. Bessent, as much as or more than Trump, has been effectively an enemy of Ukraine from the beginning.

Right at the beginning of the Trump II administration Bessent flew to Kyiv to demand that the Ukrainian government in effect hand over a large share of its mineral resources to the United States. I described it at the time as a “Belgian Congo” deal:

What Trump suggested was that Ukraine give the United States half of the revenue it gets from resource extraction, as far as I can tell in perpetuity. Trump suggested that this would amount to $500 billion, although this seems like a wildly exaggerated sum. In return, Trump offered, well, zero. No additional aid, no security guarantees, no nothing…

Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan’s book Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump offers more, damning detail. There was apparently a shouting match between Bessent and Ukraine’s president Zelenskyy, in which Zelenskyy correctly described Bessent’s proposal as a shakedown unenforceable under Ukrainian law.

Bessent then returned to Washington and urged Trump not to even meet with Zelenskyy until he signed the minerals deal:

“I’ve dealt with this little fucker,” Bessent would say to associates about Zelensky. “He’s tricky. He’s like the special-needs child for the Europeans. And he’s acting like Mr. Bean on crack”…

Nonetheless, Trump did meet with Zelenskyy — and it was a disaster, including Trump’s famous insult, “You’re not in a good position. You don’t have the cards right now.”

The Trump administration proceeded to cut off virtually all aid to Ukraine, presumably expecting Ukraine’s defense against Russia to collapse.

Ukraine, however, declined to collapse. Aid from Europe replaced much of the lost American support:

And the Ukrainians, though deprived of important U.S. weapons — especially Patriot interceptors — have if anything been gaining the upper hand in their war, thanks in part to their growing mastery of drone warfare. Russia’s ground offensive has stalled despite enormous casualties, while Ukraine is carrying out more and more long-range strikes, including, yes, strikes on Russia’s oil infrastructure.

By the way, Ukraine’s success in drone warfare suggests that the government in Kyiv could offer the U.S. military, which has fared so badly against Iranian drones, quite a lot of help. But don’t expect Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon to ask for or receive such help.

Anyway, now Bessent is blaming Ukraine for high fuel prices. Is he demanding, or maybe pleading, that the Ukrainians halt their strategic air campaign? If so, in return for what?

After all, the Trump administration can’t threaten to cut off aid — it already did that long ago. It can’t offer to help Ukraine plug the one big hole in its defense technology, its lack (so far) of effective interceptors against ballistic missiles, because the U.S. has depleted its own stock of such interceptors in its Iran debacle.

So while I’m sure that Bessent and Trump wish that Ukraine would stop blowing up Russian energy assets — they would demand that Ukraine stop, if they could — they can’t, in practice, do anything to change Ukraine’s war strategy. To put it bluntly, they’re not in a good position. They don’t have the cards.

No music. Sorry.

<https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/imperialist-delusions-and-the-price> <http://paulkrugman.substack.com>

Paul KrugmanImperialist Delusions and the Price of FuelDuring the 2024 campaign Donald Trump promised to cut energy prices in half. He has, instead, presided over soaring prices at the pump, which have played an important role in his collapse in the polls…Read more14 days ago · 1833 likes · 403 comments · Paul KrugmanPaul KrugmanNotes on economics and more

Brad DeLong here: What do I think?

First, I think that Paul Krugman’s SubStack is super-awesome.

I was talking to Suresh Naidu about this yesterday. We both agreed that it has become a first thing in the morning must-read, and that we had only one complaint. Let me get back to that later.

Second, I think Krugman is right that—surprise! surprise!—the Trump-Bessent scapegoating of Ukraine for high U.S. fuel prices is analytically dishonest and strategically hollow. It is not as though Ukraine just decided to blow up Russian refineries. It is that Russia earns money from those refineries that it uses to buy weapons to kill Ukrainians. And Ukraine’s drone mastery has flipped battlefield expectations and given Ukraine the ability to blow them up.

Trump and Bessent bet that by cutting off aid and by winking to their friend Vlad that he should stay the course that they could create a situation in which either Putin would win the war (and winning the war means the end of Ukraine as an independent state and the end of Ukraine as a nation), or in which they could plunder Ukraine’s resources.

Leave a comment

They were wrong.

Now they face blowback.

And yet when Bessent goes on the TV, he says:

We are going through an energy shock… because Ukraine has decided that they want to blow up Russian energy assets and refined properties… and [because of] the conflict in Iran…

As Paul says:

Gosh, why would the Ukrainians want to do such a thing? Might it have something to do with the fact that they are engaged in an existential struggle against Vladimir Putin’s regime, which is in its fifth year of a war aimed at destroying their nation, and they need to hit back at Putin’s military and economic base?… Far from demanding an end to Russian aggression, the Trump administration infuriated the democratic nations of Europe by inviting Russia’s finance minister, for the first time since the Ukraine war began, to Monday’s meeting of the Group of 20 major economies…. Bessent, as much as or more than Trump, has been effectively an enemy of Ukraine from the beginning…

Get 75% off a group subscription

I mean: Trump promised to halve energy prices and instead presided over a spike at the pump. Bessent called Zelenskyy “the special-needs child for the Europeans” and bet Ukraine would fold. Ukraine declined—and mastered drone warfare on the way to gaining the upper hand. Perhaps things would be different if Bessent had helped Ukraine defend itself rather than spent his energy trying to shake it down?

Refer a friend

My complaint about Paul Krugman’s SubStack? I would rather see it once every three days at three times the length, with an analytical economic model.

As Avinash Dixit wrote in his encomium for Paul Krugman on the occasion of his winning the Clark Medal, his intellectual style as an academic economics professor was more-or-less the following:

1. He spots an important economic issue.

2. He spots it years before anybody else—so far in advance that he has substantially difficulty in getting people to take it (and him)

   seriously (cf.: Paul’s experience as an assistant professor at Yale).

3. He constructs a model of it that offers new, surprising, and important insights.

4. The model does not dot all of the currently-fashionable theoretical i’s or cross all the currently-fashionable theoretical t’s.

5. Eventually the issue receives general attention.

6. Other economists find that Paul’s model and paper are sitting there, waiting for them.

   1. Some economists admire how Paul was there first.

   2. Others are, principally, irritated. As Avinash wrote: “The model is wonderfully clear and simple. But it leaves out so much and relies on so many special assumptions, including specific functional forms, that they don’t think it could possibly do justice to the complexity of the issue...”

   3. And so “armies of well-trained economists”—mostly hostile, or at least skeptical—”go to work... extend and generalize it to the point where it would get some respect from rigorous theorists...”

7. They then “as a rule... find... [that] Krugman’s special structure is so well-chosen that... its essential insights survive all the extension and generalization... go to the heart of the problem.... By contrast, the followers’ work... involv[es] much clumsy breaking of ribs; sometimes it proves no more than an autopsy of the issue...”

Share

This is what Paul Krugman did again and again and again, whether the return of depression economics or monetary policy at the zero interest rate lower bound, increasing returns and big pushes, increasing returns and development economics, geographical concentration and diffusion, dirty exchange-rate floats, currency crises, strategic trade and industrial policy, increasing returns and the sectoral pattern of international trade, and more, and more, and more. Over and over again when you look at what is of enduring value in a huge fraction of macro and international finance sub-literatures it is Krugman’s contribution that stands out and is still the single thing you need to read to understand what is going on. Over and over again, he took a current policy concern and developed a small model to build a language for discussing the issue. And he loves the economics community. I recall him writing once, now long ago:

I have never left the academic circuit, and I never will. I have been a bit cynical about how that circuit works, but its members constitute a true, and wonderfully unpretentious, élite…. I attended an international trade conference held in a classroom in Milan. The room was shabby, with seats so uncomfortable that several older participants ended up with back problems. The hotel was decent but austere. Yet I can assure you that there was more real insight in the discussion than you will find in a dozen G7 summits. I hope that I never forget that it is young economists in blue jeans, not famous officials in pinstripes, who really have interesting things to say…

Share DeLong's Grasping Reality Weblog

Well, Paul Krugman was forced out of that role—which is his singular absolute and comparative advantage—into the rôle of New York Times public intellectual who was for years and years the only person given regular space who would look around him, say what was going on, and not be a careerist liar. (In so doing, he annoyed the editors of publishers of the New York Times quite a bit, I understand.) Throughout that now quarter century, I always had this view:

1. Paul was doing the right thing in taking on this particular public intellectual role.

2. There were other people who probably could do it better and should have that task.

3. The chance the New York Times would hire any of them to do that task, which three quarters of their regular op-ed columnists should have been doing, were zero.

4. Hence he needed to stand his watch.

Leave a comment

Now, however, that particular watch is done. And I want more of the model-building Paul back—the things he calls “wonkish” when he writes them, but I want them even wonkier.

It would, of course, be a substantial mistake if Paul were to shift the orientation of his SubStack to please me. But I am selfish and wish he would do it.

Refer a friend

Coda:

Something I wrote, quite a while ago. The part I want to excerpt starts with a long quote from Michael Tomasky:

The pre-Bush Krugman... was always a liberal, to be sure, and highly critical of supply-side economics. But he also disparaged economists to his left.... Reviewing Peddling Prosperity... Benjamin M. Friedman took note of Krugman’s disdain for... ‘strategic traders’.... If you were a radical economist in those days, or a labor movement intellectual, or a left-leaning social scientist, chances are you weren’t a big fan of Paul Krugman....

About Bush v. Gore, he had little to say. After Bush took office, he savaged the administration’s regressive tax cuts. But it wasn’t really until the fall of 2002... that he began... extending his critique to the larger conservative movement and its modus operandi, and discussing the mainstream press’s failure to report....

So Krugman came a bit late to the political trenches—and perhaps a bit reluctantly. Just as Arnold Schoenberg said of himself, when asked by a stranger if he was indeed the controversial composer, that ‘nobody wanted to be, someone had to be, so I let it be me’, so I suspect Krugman might say that virtually no one on the leading Op-Ed pages was saying the things that so obviously needed to be said as the Iraq war approached, so he let it be himself who said them. And now, after years of twice-weekly deadlines, he appears to have decided that there’s no turning back...

Give a gift subscription

This assumption of this role provoked huge amounts of pushback: denunciations of Krugman for having some good points to make, but being “too shrill”. The epitome of highbrow anti-Krugmanism probably came in Bill Emmott and Clive Crook’s Economist in 2003, which wrote about him as “the one-handed economist”:

Increasingly, people are asking whether Mr Krugman’s success as a journalist is now coming at the expense of, rather than as the result of, his economics. For while he has had some journalistic coups during his time as a columnist... the most striking thing about his writing these days is not its economic rigour but its political partisanship. Lyinginponds.com, a website that tracks partisanship among American political columnists, rates Mr Krugman second in the overall partisan slant....

[His critics] they cannot all be easily dismissed. The more reasonable ones allow that he is a gifted writer and economist, but also argue that these days his relentless partisanship is getting in the way of his argument. Is the American political and economic picture, they ask, really as one-sided as he paints it? And if not, should an economist of Mr Krugman’s prominence be telling the public that it is?

A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world’s ills to George Bush. Regarding California’s energy crisis, for example, he berated the Bush administration and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for not imposing price caps sooner—but found no room to mention Bill Clinton… nor to attack… Gray Davis....

Even his economics is sometimes stretched. A recent piece accused conservatives of embracing the “lump of labour fallacy”... the paper he cited did not.... He used game theory to argue that, by criticising North Korea but not attacking it, and then going after Iraq instead, Mr Bush is “probably” encouraging North Korea to become a more dangerous nuclear power. This probably did not convince most game theorists.

Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman’s perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory....

Krugman seems to have embraced the concept of the free lunch—even though as an economist he should know better. Every opportunity (including lunch, and even including Mr Krugman’s favoured policies) has a cost.... Surely one of an economist’s main tasks is to remind one-handed politicians, and their constituents, that economic choices generally come in shades of grey, not black and white—even when they are made by one’s political rivals.

Many of Mr Krugman’s fellow economists, jealous of his celebrity, comfort themselves with the thought that his angry rants have hurt his reputation enough to ensure he will not now win a Nobel prize.... [But] the Nobel committee has not been averse in the past to giving the prize to economists who have achieved popular notoriety, as its awards to Mr Friedman and, more recently, Joseph Stiglitz show...

Get 75% off a group subscription

That was appalling.

First, you cannot help but notice the extraordinary absence of quotes, of references to specifics, of references to identifiable cases and persons, and, indeed, the absence of the active voice. The only thing that can be called a citation is <http://lyinginponds.com/>. Everything else is: “people are asking…” cannot all be easily dismissed…” “reasonable ones allow…” “a recent piece…” “the paper…” “this probably did not convince…” “many of Mr Krugman’s fellow economists…”

Moreover:

• Was there a need for FERC to impose price caps under the Clinton administration? No.

• Which column and which paper brushed up against the lump-of-labor fallacy? Emmott and Crook do not say.

• How and where have Krugman’s columns committed the free lunch fallacy? Again, Emmott and Crook does not say.

• Who are the economists who are jealous of Krugman’s celebrity? Silence.

• And are Emmott and Crook really arguing that it was smart of George W. Bush to slap the label “axis of evil” on three countries and then invade one of them given that he wanted to convince North Korea to halt its nuclear weapons program?

Share

If this is the best bill of particulars that anti-Krugmanism can come up with—and it seems that it is—the natural conclusion is that Krugman was correct when he wrote that:

Many powerful people prefer to take advice from those who make them feel comfortable rather than from those who will force them to think hard. That is, those who really manage to influence policy are usually the best courtiers, not the best analysts. I like to think that I am a good analyst, but I am certainly a very bad courtier...

Share DeLong's Grasping Reality Weblog

OK. Coming back to the present, I note that neither Emmott nor Crook has ever been able to be man enough to apologize.

Nor do I suppose that either of them ever will be.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

If reading this gets you Value Above Replacement, then become a free subscriber to this newsletter. And forward it! And if your VAR from this newsletter is in the three digits or more each year, please become a paid subscriber! I am trying to make you readers—and myself—smarter. Please tell me if I succeed, or how I fail…##crosspost-paul-krugman-imperialist-delusions-the-price-of-fuel
##public-reason
##neofascism
##crosspost
#paul-krugman-imperialist-delusions-the-price-of-fuel
#paul-krugman
#imperialist-delusions-the-price-of-fuel
I’ll read the page content first to understand what this post is about.
#scott-bessent
#donald-trump
#ukraine-war
#energy-shock
#chaos-monkey
#russian-refineries
#drone-warfare
#economic-analysis
#robin-wells
#new-york-times

No typing-pool annihilation this time, at least not so far, and probably never. AI isn’t killing occupations, but watch out for the elasticity of demand!:

Again, another one from Torsten Slok, who is on a roll these days:

Share

With comment:

Torsten Slok: AI Is Retraining Workers, Not Replacing Them <https://www.apollo.com/wealth/insights-news/insights/daily-spark/ai-is-retraining-workers-not-replacing-them>: ‘A new survey from the New York Fed… shows that 34% of service firms and 22% of manufacturers using AI are retraining staff, while only 4% and 0% report layoffs. This is consistent with our core view that AI is putting downward pressure on wages in AI-exposed occupations without a significant negative impact on employment…. Here: Analysis of actual Claude usage data… suggest[s]… companies are capturing AI productivity gains through wage compression rather than workforce reduction…. [Analysis] by Sania Edlich and me using a difference-in-differences methodology with occupation and year fixed effects across 321 matched occupations from 2015 to today…

Give a gift subscription

What are the jobs that are like the hand spinners, hand weavers, and hand knitters whose entire occupations vanished during the British Industrial Revolution of the 1800s that brought us into the SteamPower Age? What are the jobs that are like the typing pool stenographers and the switchboard operators and the back-office hand reconcilers whose entire occupations similarly vanished with the coming of the personal computer, = the electronic telephone switch, and the computer network?

Looking around, I see damned few of them.

Thus I think the way to bet is that tasks will shift and occupations will change, but whether the number of people employed in them depends overwhelmingly on the elasticity of demand for the kinds of things that they do. And so Jevons’s Paradox is key here, not as a totem and a fetish to wave around, but as an important piece of analysis.

Get 75% off a group subscription

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

If reading this gets you Value Above Replacement, then become a free subscriber to this newsletter. And forward it! And if your VAR from this newsletter is in the three digits or more each year, please become a paid subscriber! I am trying to make you readers—and myself—smarter. Please tell me if I succeed, or how I fail…##‎⁠retraining-workers-for-ai-chart-of-the-day
##macro-outlook⁠
##‎⁠chart-of-the-day⁠
#‎⁠retraining-workers-for-ai⁠
#ai-and-labor
#retraining-not-replacing
#jevons-paradox
#wage-compression
#ai-exposed-occupations
#torsten-slok
#new-york-fed

I think the solution to this is Douglas Hofstadters’s: There are rules, and there are premises. There must be a bottom layer where the system simply acts on a rule, mechanically, rather than contemplating it as another proposition to assent to. You jump out of the loop, and the step from premises to conclusion is something you do, not something you believe:

1. The Regress That Ate Achilles: Why Logic Can’t Justify Its Own Last Step

2. What the Tortoise Knew: Lewis Carroll’s Proof That Reasoning Isn’t a Rule

A thousand and one premises: Carroll’s infinite note-book and the floor beneath logic; or, the regress and logic’s unsuccessful attempts to justify its own final operative step:

READING: LEWIS CARROLL (1895): What The Tortoise Said To Achilles

<https://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Tortoise.html>

ACHILLES had overtaken the Tortoise, and had seated himself comfortably on its back.

“So you’ve got to the end of our race-course?” said the Tortoise. “Even though it does consist of an infinite series of distances? I thought some wiseacre or other had proved that the thing couldn’t be done?”

“It can be done,” said Achilles. “It has been done! Solvitur ambulando. You see the distances were constantly diminishing; and so --”

“But if they had been constantly increasing?” the Tortoise interrupted. “How then?”

“Then I shouldn’t be here,“ Achilles modestly replied; “and you would have got several times round the world, by this time!”

“You flatter me -- flatten, I mean,” said the Tortoise; “for you are a heavy weight, and no mistake! Well now, would you like to hear of a race-course, that most people fancy they can get to the end of in two or three steps, while it really consists of an infinite number of distances, each one longer than the previous one?”

“Very much indeed!” said the Grecian warrior, as he drew from his helmet (few Grecian warriors possessed pockets in those days) an enormous note-book and a pencil. “Proceed! And speak slowly, please! Shorthand isn’t invented yet!”

“That beautiful First Proposition of Euclid!” the Tortoise murmured dreamily. “You admire Euclid?”

“Passionately! So far, at least, as one can admire a treatise that wo’n’t be published for some centuries to come!”

“Well, now, let’s take a little bit of the argument in that First Proposition -- just two steps, and the conclusion drawn from them. Kindly enter them in your note-book. And in order to refer to them conveniently, let’s call them A, B, and Z: --

(A) Things that are equal to the same are equal to each other.

(B) The two sides of this Triangle are things that are equal to the same.

(Z) The two sides of this Triangle are equal to each other.

Readers of Euclid will grant, I suppose, that Z follows logically from A and B, so that any one who accepts A and B as true, must accept Z as true?”

“Undoubtedly! The youngest child in a High School -- as soon as High Schools are invented, which will not be till some two thousand years later -- will grant that.“

“And if some reader had not yet accepted A and B as true, he might still accept the sequence as a valid one, I suppose?”

“No doubt such a reader might exist. He might say `I accept as true the Hypothetical Proposition that, if A and B be true, Z must be true; but, I don’t accept A and B as true.’ Such a reader would do wisely in abandoning Euclid, and taking to football.”

“And might there not also be some reader who would say `I accept A and B as true, but I don’t accept the Hypothetical’?”

“Certainly there might. He, also, had better take to football.”

“And neither of these readers,” the Tortoise continued, “is as yet under any logical necessity to accept Z as true?”

“Quite so,” Achilles assented.

“Well, now, I want you to consider me as a reader of the second kind, and to force me, logically, to accept Z as true.”

“A tortoise playing football would be -- “ Achilles was beginning

“ -- an anomaly, of course,” the Tortoise hastily interrupted. “Don’t wander from the point. Let’s have Z first, and football afterwards!”

“I’m to force you to accept Z, am I?” Achilles said musingly. “And your present position is that you accept A and B, but you don’t accept the Hypothetical --”

“Let’s call it C,“ said the Tortoise.

“-- but you don’t accept

(C) If A and B are true, Z must be true.”

“That is my present position,” said the Tortoise.

“Then I must ask you to accept C.“

“I’ll do so,” said the Tortoise, “as soon as you’ve entered it in that note-book of yours. What else have you got in it?”

“Only a few memoranda,” said Achilles, nervously fluttering the leaves: “a few memoranda of -- of the battles in which I have distinguished myself!”

“Plenty of blank leaves, I see!” the Tortoise cheerily remarked. “We shall need them all!” (Achilles shuddered.) “Now write as I dictate:-

(A) Things that are equal to the same are equal to each other.

(B) The two sides of this Triangle are things that are equal to the same.

(C) If A and B are true, Z must be true.

(Z) The two sides of this Triangle are equal to each other.”

“You should call it D, not Z,“ said Achilles. “It comes next to the other three. If you accept A and B and C, you must accept Z.“

“And why must I?”

“Because it follows logically from them. If A and B and C are true, Z must be true. You don’t dispute that, I imagine?”

“If A and B and C are true, Z must be true,” the Tortoise thoughtfully repeated. “That’s another Hypothetical, isn’t it? And, if I failed to see its truth, I might accept A and B and C, and still not accept Z, mightn’t I?”

“You might,” the candid hero admitted; “though such obtuseness would certainly be phenomenal. Still, the event is possible. So I must ask you to grant one more Hypothetical.”

“Very good. I’m quite willing to grant it, as soon as you’ve written it down. We will call it

(D) If A and B and C are true, Z must be true.

Have you entered that in your note-book?”

“I have!” Achilles joyfully exclaimed, as he ran the pencil into its sheath. “And at last we’ve got to the end of this ideal race-course! Now that you accept A and B and C and D, of course you accept Z.“

“Do I?” said the Tortoise innocently. “Let’s make that quite clear. I accept A and B and C and D. Suppose I still refused to accept Z?”

“Then Logic would take you by the throat, and force you to do it!” Achilles triumphantly replied. “Logic would tell you `You ca’n’t help yourself. Now that you’ve accepted A and B and C and D, you must accept Z!’ So you’ve no choice, you see.”

“Whatever Logic is good enough to tell me is worth writing down,“ said the Tortoise. “So enter it in your book, please. We will call it

(E) If A and B and C and D are true, Z must be true. Until I’ve granted that, of course I needn’t grant Z. So it’s quite a necessary step, you see?”

“I see,” said Achilles; and there was a touch of sadness in his tone.

Here the narrator, having pressing business at the Bank, was obliged to leave the happy pair, and did not again pass the spot until some months afterwards. When he did so, Achilles was still seated on the back of the much-enduring Tortoise, and was writing in his note-book, which appeared to be nearly full. The Tortoise was saying “Have you got that last step written down? Unless I’ve lost count, that makes a thousand and one. There are several millions more to come. And would you mind, as a personal favour, considering what a lot of instruction this colloquy of ours will provide for the Logicians of the Nineteenth Century -- would you mind adopting a pun that my cousin the Mock-Turtle will then make, and allowing yourself to be re-named Taught-Us?”

“As you please!” replied the weary warrior, in the hollow tones of despair, as he buried his face in his hands. “Provided that you, for your part, will adopt a pun the Mock-Turtle never made, and allow yourself to be re-named A Kill-Ease!”

<https://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Tortoise.html>

Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles> tells me:

Wikipedia: ‘Several philosophers have tried to resolve Carroll’s paradox. Bertrand Russell discussed the paradox briefly in § 38 of The Principles of Mathematics (1903), distinguishing between implication (associated with the form “if p, then q“), which he held to be a relation between unasserted propositions, and inference (associated with the form “p, therefore q“), which he held to be a relation between asserted propositions; having made this distinction, Russell could deny that the Tortoise’s attempt to treat inferring Z from A and B as equivalent to, or dependent on, agreeing to the hypothetical “If A and B are true, then Z is true.”

Peter Winch, a Wittgensteinian philosopher, discussed the paradox in The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy (1958), where he argued that the paradox showed that “the actual process of drawing an inference, which is after all at the heart of logic, is something which cannot be represented as a logical formula ... Learning to infer is not just a matter of being taught about explicit logical relations between propositions; it is learning to do something” (p. 57). Winch goes on to suggest that the moral of the dialogue is a particular case of a general lesson, to the effect that the proper application of rules governing a form of human activity cannot itself be summed up with a set of further rules, and so that “a form of human activity can never be summed up in a set of explicit precepts” (p. 53).

Carroll’s dialogue is apparently the first description of an obstacle to conventionalism about logical truth,[4] later reworked in more sober philosophical terms by W. V. O. Quine.[5]

Perhap the best thumbnail is: Achilles has all the premises and the conclusion staring him in the face—yet the Tortoise will not budge, and every reason he offers only becomes one more premise to grant. Carroll’s 1895 joke turns out to be a load-bearing wall of modern logic. Every attempt to make the Tortoise reason produces another proposition he can politely refuse to grant. The way out isn’t more logic; it’s noticing that drawing a conclusion was never a belief in the first place.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

If reading this gets you Value Above Replacement, then become a free subscriber to this newsletter. And forward it! And if your VAR from this newsletter is in the three digits or more each year, please become a paid subscriber! I am trying to make you readers—and myself—smarter. Please tell me if I succeed, or how I fail…##reading-lewis-carroll-1895-what-the-tortoise-said-to-achilles
##reading
##public-reason
##i-have-always-found-this-fascinating-and-i-do-not-know-what-i-should-think-about-it
#lewis-carroll-1895-what-the-tortoise-said-to-achilles
#lewis-carroll
#1895-what-the-tortoise-said-to-achilles
#lewis-carroll
#tortoise-and-achilles
#rules-and-premises
#modus-ponens
#mathematical-logic
#jumping-out-of-the-loop
#zeno-of-elea
#logical-paradox

For eighty years the free world’s security ran on a single hub, and everyone knew who it was: the United States. What the Viking Alliance is building is the first credible answer to what happens if that hub is captured from within by a combination of grifters, neofascists, and chaos monkeys. The people who spent a decade telling Europe to carry its own weight have finally gotten their wish. And the United States is much less powerful a weight in world security affairs as a result.

Capture the hub of a hub-and-spoke alliance, and it collapses. That is the vulnerability NATO has carried since 1945. Putin thought he had captured the hub via his “special relationship” with Donald Trump as Washington went awry. But every place that Vikings ever set foot—Sweden, Canada, and Ukraine at the core; with Germany, the Baltics, the other Nordics; plus France and Britain and Poland; are now building an advance guard: a durable European capability that no longer depends on the United States showing up. For the first time, “and if the Americans don’t come?” has an answer other than “then we lose.” NATO is becoming a web. Webs are much harder to capture than hubs. And they move by rough consensus, not by the will and whims of a single hub.

Share

We have, from Shankar Narayan:

Give a gift subscription

With commentary:

Shankar Narayan: The Coalition of the Doing <https://www.theconcis.com/p/the-coalition-of-the-doing>: ‘Canada supplied the trigger. But… what is rare is actually walking through the door. Sweden did. And now the results are starting to pile up…. One country begins running hard and fast… and, in doing so, starts connecting… making the entire structure stronger than the sum of its parts…. Let us rewind the clock to May 27 and then roll it forward, one decision at a time. Because when you see what happened next, laid out in sequence, there really is no other way to describe it: this has been extraordinary…

Share DeLong's Grasping Reality Weblog

Brad DeLong here: What do I think? This:

Charles Kindleberger taught us that an open international order, whether oriented around trade or security, needs a hegemon willing to be the lender, buyer, and guarantor of “last resort” in economics, and the leader-director in security. In the years after U.S. entry into WWII at the end of 1941 both halves of the post-WWII order outside the Iron Curtain ran on a single anchor, a single hub, the United States.

What Canada triggered, what Sweden walked through, and is now gelling as what Narayan calls the Coalition of the Doing and I call the Viking Alliance is the creation of a new, second potential anchor for the NATO-EU portion of the open international order. What Canada and Sweden and Germany and Ukraine; plus Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Holland, France, and Britain; are doing is building-up an advance guard with a durable, standing capability for military action inside Europe. Procurement, logistics, industrial base, command: the whole stack. And this advance guard’s capability, when built, does not at any point in the causal chain route through the Washington, DC currently controlled by a bunch of grifters, neofascists, and chaos monkeys. An alliance with one indispensable leader is a hub-and-spoke. Hub-and-spokes are brittle exactly where they look strongest. Capture the hub and the thing collapses. But an alliance with two credible centers of gravity in initiating force commitment is a network with redundancy. For the first time since 1945 there exists a plausible answer to the question “and if the Americans don’t come?” that is not simply “then we lose.”

There is irony here, entirely lost on the people who spent a decade demanding Europe “pay its fair share” have gotten their wish: the United States in foreign affairs no longer has its weight multiplied by NATO to the dominant strength of 1,000,000,000 people living in the rich industrial civilization, but only its own 350,000,000.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

If reading this gets you Value Above Replacement, then become a free subscriber to this newsletter. And forward it! And if your VAR from this newsletter is in the three digits or more each year, please become a paid subscriber! I am trying to make you readers—and myself—smarter. Please tell me if I succeed, or how I fail…##the-viking-alliance-is-coalescing-chart-of-the-day
##neofascism
##war-and-rumors-of-war
##chart-of-the-day
##nato-is-getting-a-second-locus-of-initiative-and-washingtons-power-is-no-longer-automatically-multiplied-to-the-strength-of-a-billion-by-nato-but-finds-its-leadership-of-the-alliance-now-contested
#the-viking-alliance-is-coalescing-
#shankar-narayan
#viking-alliance
#coalition-of-the-doing
#nato
#network-redundancy
#european-defense
#chaos-monkeys
#collective-security

Justin Wolfers’ grades are straight Fs on all the things Trump promised to get from tariffs: leverage, deficit reduction, factory revival, national security, and revenue. He says that the failures share a single root: a misconception that trade is a zero-sum contest to be won rather than cooperation that both sides benefit from. I disagree. That would be attributing much more logic to Trump’s actions and statements than they deserve. There are people who work for Trump who have the gross misconception that trade is a zero-sum contest to be “won”, yes. But Trump is simply trying to create headlines by doing things. The Supreme Court and the Republican congressional majority have allowed him to do things with tariffs. So he does them. To get headlines. To the extent that there is a goal, it is to “make a deal” in some way. But mostly it is about the headlines.

Justin says: The mechanism runs from a mistaken premise to self-inflicted damage. Trump treated trade as extraction: America gets “ripped off,” so tariffs force better terms. But tariffs triggered retaliation (China to 125%, Canadian boycotts), raised input costs and consumer prices, injected on-again/off-again uncertainty that deterred the factory investment they were meant to spur. Because trade is reciprocal cooperation, throwing sand in the gears cost America customers, suppliers, and trusted partners rather than winning concessions. The “deals” Trump trumpets were, largely, either fictional or already-existing. The goods trade deficit has gotten worse, but i not what we should be looking at anyway. “Reshoring” did not happen as sand in the gears reduced American factory employment. And Trump has advertised a great many supply-chain vulnerabilities that people now have no reason not to exploit.

Share

Grading tariffs against Trump’s own promises and not economists’ ideals yields Justin’s five consecutive Fs:

Platypus EconomicsEconomics. Explained. Clearly.By Justin WolfersCROSSPOST: JUSTIN WOLFERS: Did Trump’s Tariffs Achieve Trump’s Goals?

<https://newsletter.platypuseconomics.com/p/did-trumps-tariffs-work-i-used-his> <https://newsletter.platypuseconomics.com/>

Platypus EconomicsDid Trump’s Tariffs Achieve Trump’s Goals?When the Trump administration pushed out their tariffs, there was a laundry list of great things they were going to achieve. Today, I’m asking: did those tariffs do what the administration promised? I’m an economics professor, so I’m approaching this like a report card…Read more12 days ago · 150 likes · 4 comments · Justin WolfersI didn’t grade the trade war against an economist’s ideal. I graded it against Trump’s own promises.

Justin Wolfers

Sep 02, 2026

When the Trump administration pushed out their tariffs, there was a laundry list of great things they were going to achieve. Today, I’m asking: did those tariffs do what the administration promised? I’m an economics professor, so I’m approaching this like a report card.

President Trump’s tariffs were supposed to do a lot of things. Give America leverage over foreign governments. Shrink the trade deficit. Bring factories home. Make America safer from China. And pay for child care, tax cuts, farmer relief, and tariff dividend checks. Maybe replace the income tax. Or cure toe fungus.

So today, for report card day: Five promises, which we’ll put to five empirical tests, and deliver five grades on.

Here’s the rule I’m using. I’m not grading these tariffs against what I would have done, or against what economists think trade policy should look like. I’m grading them against what the administration itself said the tariffs would deliver.

So: pencils down. Let’s see how the administration’s tariff policy scores on its own test.

Test One: Leverage for Getting Better Deals

Promise one was the tariffs were going to give America leverage over foreign governments. This was an argument that came in two parts. One hinges on fairness, the other on strength.

The fairness claim was that foreign governments were ripping America off with tariffs, subsidies, regulations, currency policies, all of it. The second part of the argument came down to power. America has the world’s biggest consumer market, everyone wants in, so we use that to force other countries to the table.

There’s a few problems with the fairness side. First: the world we actually lived in — at least before the trade war — wasn’t the world the President described. The world actually involves very little protectionism. The arguments for free trade had mostly won the day in most countries.

Canada and Mexico traded with America under USMCA, the free trade agreement Trump himself negotiated in his first term, and most goods crossed those borders duty-free. South Korea had KORUS, and most American manufactured exports already entered Korea tariff-free. The average tariff on American goods was around 3% in the European Union and around 3% in China. Most other rich countries sat in the same neighborhood. A few poor countries ran bigger tariffs, but they’re not large markets for us, so not really a big deal.

So there were tariffs — just very, very low ones. Why weren’t those numbers zero, rather than two or three percent? Because that’s not how trade deals work. When it comes to negotiating trade, two leaders sit down and eliminate tariffs across most of the economy. But they leave aside a handful of politically radioactive sectors — think dairy, rice, sugar, sometimes steel. Those are the sectors where a politician who mishandles them loses their job. So you forgive your counterpart their political weaknesses, and they help you with yours. The result is the attainable trade deal rather than the perfect one: tariffs broadly at zero, hand your counterpart a few political wins, and trade (mostly) freely.

That’s the world America had. The claim that we faced vast tariff walls across the developed world isn’t true, and hasn’t been for decades. It may have been partly true in the President’s youth… But that was a while ago.

Now for the power half. Did the tariffs get America better deals?

There have been many announcements about this — but they don’t amount to much.

Take South Korea. The administration celebrated a new deal opening Korea to American cars and manufactured goods. Except that our trade agreement, KORUS, had already given most American manufactured exports tariff-free entry years ago. So the new arrangement leaves a 15% U.S. tariff on Korean goods and claims credit for market access American manufacturers already had.

Or take the much-touted arrangement with the European Union, which isn’t a deal at all. It’s a framework: a promise to make future promises. The document is written almost entirely in the future tense — “intends,” “will work,” “seeks.” It’s the trade equivalent of “we should really get coffee sometime.”

Still the administration claims to have signed real deals — reciprocal trade agreements — with ten countries: Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, and Taiwan. Say that whole list out loud and it sounds impressive. Add up their share of American goods exports and you get about 6%. And the agreements cover only some products and only some barriers, so the share of exports actually affected is far smaller than that.

Oh… but it gets worse. It’s not clear that any of these agreements are actually in effect. Most were struck in response to tariffs imposed under emergency powers, and those tariffs were subsequently ruled unconstitutional. A USTR report from February lists all or nearly all of these as agreements that “have been negotiated, but have not yet entered into force.” So the count might be closer to zero.

Who isn’t represented in that count? The folks we actually trade heavily with: Mexico, Canada, the UK, China, Japan, and Germany, plus (as discussed above) the EU and Korea. This list of counties shows up elsewhere: It’s the list where American access has been restricted, or may soon be, in retaliation. China took tariffs on American exports as high as 125% in April 2025, and while the peak came down, a 10% additional tariff on U.S. goods runs through November 2026. That’s alongside targeted tariffs on American farm and energy products. American goods exports to China fell 26% in 2025. Sales elsewhere rose, but they didn’t replace that market.

The Canadian government retaliated too, and Canadian consumers started quietly protesting in their own way: trips to the U.S. fell sharply, as did their imports. Turns out the surest way to lose a Canadian’s business is to keep calling their country the 51st state.

Grading Leverage: Threats, retaliation, a few small commitments that may not be in force. No serious net gain for American exporters. That’s an F.

Test Two: Reducing the Trade Deficit

The White House called the trade deficit a national emergency. Not just the total trade deficit either: Peter Navarro argued for actions to reduce every bilateral deficit. This would require persuading the rest of the world to want exactly as much American stuff as America wants of theirs. Bold.

In 2024, America bought $1.212 trillion more in goods from the world than it sold. In 2025, the first full year of the tariff program, the goods deficit rose to a record of about $1.24 trillion. Tariffs apply directly to goods, and the goods deficit got worse.

The first half of 2026 does look better — roughly $550 billion, which annualizes to something a bit north of a trillion. That’s an improvement… and a trillion-dollar deficit.

And, as you may have heard, America is a service-focused economy. We sell a lot of that — finance, software, travel, consulting, entertainment, education. The total deficit — including services, this time — was about $904 billion in 2024 and about $902 billion in 2025. If those sound like they’re pretty much the same number, that’s because they are.

A good professor asks his students to show their work, so let’s look to China. America’s goods deficit with China fell by about $94 billion in 2025. That’s good news — until you notice the goods deficit with Southeast Asia rose by about $100 billion over the same stretch. We just changed the labels on the boxes. Imports left China and reappeared in Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia. Some of that is real supply chain relocation. Some of it is Chinese firms shipping through third countries. Either way, Americans kept buying.

Grade the Trade Deficit: Bigger in 2025, maybe smaller in 2026, still enormous. Another F.

I’d add that a deficit is an accounting total, not an economic scorecard. The whole here premise is flawed. It’s not at all clear that a better grade on this score would mean a better life for Americans.

Test Three: An Industrial Revival

This is the big one, folks. The one the administration talks about at every opportunity. They said they were going to bring back factories. Big boofy blokes with steel-toed boots bringing home the bacon.

And yet: Manufacturing employment is lower than when Trump returned to office. By July 2026, America had about 62,000 fewer manufacturing jobs than in January 2025. That’s a small number, coming in at roughly half a percent. It’s not a collapse. But we ran an extraordinary trade war to rescue this one sector, and the sector kept shrinking while the rest of the economy added jobs.

Manufacturing output has risen modestly this year, and factory capacity remains loose. American factories are not running flat out, because tariffs did not unleash a wave of new demand for what they make. Factory construction says the same thing: the manufacturing construction boom of the early 2020s was driven by semiconductor investment and industrial policy passed before Trump returned, it peaked in 2024, and it has fallen since. The tariffs arrived after the boom started and during its slowdown.

This is one where the details really deserve a first-hand account. The Dallas Fed put a beautifully simple question to 271 Texas firms: what net impact do you expect higher tariffs to have on your business this year?

59% said negative.

4% said positive.

17% said no impact.

20% didn’t know.

Fifty-nine over four is roughly fifteen — fifteen manufacturers expecting harm for every one expecting help.

And among the firms expecting harm, 55% said they would pass costs to customers. 44% said they would absorb costs as lower profits. Notably, 29% would look for domestic suppliers — that’s something the policy was actually going for, and it’s a positive. 27% would just shift the timing of their imports.

Just 5% planned to move production to the United States.

The Fed’s national small business survey finds the same pattern: 13% of firms using foreign inputs switched to domestic suppliers, and just 3% moved production to America.

There’s a reason nobody’s pouring concrete: if a tariff is on Monday and off on Tuesday, you don’t build a plant around it. The tariff can flip several more times before the concrete has dried.

Grading the Industrial Revival: Some domestic sourcing, fewer factory jobs, no revival. A clear F.

Test Four: National Security

I don’t want it to seem like I’m going through this report on the premise that there’s no point going after these goals. There is a real trade policy case for targeting strategic risks. America does need secure access to rare earths, magnets, chips, medicines, and specialized metals.

The trouble is that most of this trade war wasn’t targeted at all. And where it was targeted, it backfired.

Rare earths are misnamed — they aren’t especially rare. The scarcity comes in who processes them. China does a lot of that processing, and they do it for the entire world. That means they turn raw material into magnets. Those magnets go into cars, aircraft, electronics, and military equipment. Before the trade war, China supplied around 70% of the rare earth compounds and metals America imported.

Then things escalated, and China restricted exports of critical rare earths and magnets. The White House’s own economic report says those restrictions caused factory shutdowns, including in the U.S. China has since used export controls on gallium, germanium, graphite, and antimony too. No, those aren’t words I made up to sound like a scientist (please don’t ever think that I am a scientist). But those critical minerals matter for semiconductors, batteries, weapons, and advanced manufacturing.

Here’s the part that keeps me up. The dependence was always there. But a dependence only becomes a vulnerability once your adversary discovers it — and this trade war sent them looking. They found it. Now they know exactly where to press, and they’ve shown that they’re willing.

The administration has announced domestic mining and magnet projects, and those may help reduce these vulnerabilities. They also have nothing to do with the tariffs. And don’t get me started on the Strait of Hormuz and the rest of what we import from that part of the world.

Grading National Security: The vulnerability was revealed, not reduced. F.

Test Five: Tariffs Raise Revenue

Here’s a partial list of what the President promised that tariff revenue would fund. Child care. Tax cuts. No tax on tips. No tax on overtime. No tax on Social Security. Tax benefits for American cars. Farmer relief. Tariff dividend checks — remember those? Mine never arrived. Debt reduction. And the end of the income tax.

Tariffs are taxes, and taxes do two things: they change behavior, and they raise revenue.

This program certainly changed behavior. Families paid higher prices, businesses paid higher input costs, and supply chains reorganized themselves around dodging the tariff.

The revenue is the strange part. Customs duties rose from $77 billion in fiscal 2024 to $195 billion in fiscal 2025 — an increase of about $118 billion. Much of that increase came from tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the Supreme Court struck those down earlier this year. By mid-August, roughly $100 billion had already been refunded.

These refunds don’t work like they do at a store. When I paid more for olive oil at Costco because of a tariff, the refund didn’t come to me. It went to the importer of record. Yes: that’s the company on the customs paperwork. So… Costco. The family at the checkout paid while the big importer got the check.

More is likely coming. The Section 122 replacement tariffs — a temporary 10% tariff meant for a balance of payments crisis — were struck down at trial because there was no balance of payments crisis, and that’s on appeal. The newer Section 301 tariffs, the ones you’re paying right now, rest on the premise that we’re punishing other countries for their use of forced labor. Which countries? Apparently all of them. That’s a pretext, and everyone involved knows it.

Why the parade of odd legal theories? Because the Constitution gives the tariff power to Congress. Congress has occasionally lent narrow slices of it to the White House, but nobody ever intended it as something a president waves around at will — and this administration has consistently declined to go ask Congress for it. The courts occasionally suggest we look at the Constitution, and it’s unclear whether the administration will gather much revenue here at all.

Of course, if the administration passed these tariffs as laws, they wouldn’t have any of these problems. The revenue problems are the direct result of the President refusing to involve Congress in his trade war.

Grade Revenue: Americans got the distortion, and much of the money is being handed back to importers rather than kept by the Treasury. F.

Share

Final Grade: Time to Call the Parents

Let me put the report card up one last time.

Leverage: threats and retaliation, no serious net gain. The deficit: worse in 2025, smaller in 2026, still enormous. Factories: a little domestic sourcing, no revival. Security: China found the choke point. Revenue: Americans paid, importers got refunded.

These failures look different from one another, but they share a root, and it’s an idea about what trade is.

Trade is cooperation. A farmer gets a customer. A factory gets a component. A family gets a product. An American business gets a buyer abroad.

The trade war threw sand in all of it. It disrupted export markets. It disrupted supply chains. It disrupted investment. It disrupted relationships with allies. Then it added uncertainty and stirred.

A stronger America has more customers, more suppliers, more trusted partners, and more capacity to make the things it needs. This trade war has delivered fewer of every one of them.

Five promises. Five tests. Five fails.

And this is grading the President on his own stated goals. As I’ve said before, those goals are themselves questionable:

Platypus EconomicsThe Lawyer’s Theory of TradeRead more2 months ago · 197 likes · 12 comments · Justin Wolfers

<https://newsletter.platypuseconomics.com/p/did-trumps-tariffs-work-i-used-his> <https://newsletter.platypuseconomics.com/>

Platypus EconomicsDid Trump’s Tariffs Achieve Trump’s Goals?When the Trump administration pushed out their tariffs, there was a laundry list of great things they were going to achieve. Today, I’m asking: did those tariffs do what the administration promised? I’m an economics professor, so I’m approaching this like a report card…Read more12 days ago · 150 likes · 4 comments · Justin WolfersPlatypus EconomicsEconomics. Explained. Clearly.By Justin Wolfers

Brad DeLong here: It is excellent to welcome Justin Wolfers to the WebLog-o-Sphere, or I suppose these days we should call it the SubStack-a-Thon. (I do think, all-in-all, that the SubStack Honchos’ plans to try to become the place for people who do not want to have their brains hacked by malevolent actors is worth leaning into and supporting.) He has been blogging a piece a day since April 21.

Give a gift subscription

Today he hits the sweet spot, and is very much worth crossposting.

Justin is right not only in that Trump’s chaos-monkey trade wars off-again-on-again Trump-Always-Chickens-Out TACO have been a disaster not just from an economists’ point of view, but also from a point of view that rationalizes Trump’s own stated goals.

The “deal"s” Trump celebrates (Korea, EU) either restate access American firms already had or are aspirational “frameworks” in the future tense; the ten “reciprocal” deals cover ~6% of exports and may not be legally in force. The goods deficit hit a record ~$1.24T in 2025. But that is not a measure we should be looking at. And China has learned how much potential leverage over the U.S. it has with rare-earths and critical-minerals: a lot.

Justin cuts through the announcement theater of framework “deals” and bilateral-deficit rhetoric with verifiable data, and clarifies conceptual errors. — deficits as accounting identities, dependence vs. vulnerability & c. Leverage, deficit, factories, security, revenue—all failed, because the war threw sand in the gears of productive economic cooperation that is the reason for trade.

However, I profoundly disagree with an underlying assumption of Justin’s piece: Justin claims that Trump has been trying to follow a rational policy based on his false belief that trade is a zero-sum struggle. Grant Trump his bad model of the world, the framing runs, and the tariffs become the logical policy moves that follow from it; they simply fail on their own terms because the model is wrong.

That concedes far too much.

That imputes a non-existent means-ends rationality to Trump and the Tru,p administration.

That takes a chaotic set of actions, and constructs underneath them a stable set of goals, a theory connecting instruments to those goals, and a willingness to be corrected by evidence.

But that is nowhere in evidence. The “laundry list” of promises Justin so ably demolishes was never a plan. It was a rotating grab-bag of justifications, generated after the fact and abandoned the moment a new audience or a new grievance required a different one. The better model is not “wrong beliefs rationally applied” but the near-absence of the belief-to-action link that rationality requires.

Tariff policy here is a dominance display and a mechanism for extracting tribute, deference, and the pleasure of being courted. Those are ends in themselves. They are not instruments toward national prosperity. That is why the tariffs go on Monday and off Tuesday, why the legal theories are transparent pretexts nobody is meant to believe, why “deals” are announced that restate access we already had, and why the same measures are defended one week as leverage, the next as revenue, the next as reindustrialization.

The chaos is not a bug in the execution of a zero-sum worldview. The worldview is not doing any work. To treat the policy as the sincere, if flawed, application of mercantilist doctrine is to flatter it with a coherence it does not possess. Worse, it invites the reply that the doctrine simply needs better technicians next time.

The truth is this: it is chaos monkeys all the way down.

Get 75% off a group subscription

The most interesting piece of data to me was the Dallas Fed survey: it found manufacturers overwhelmingly expecting economic harm from Trump’s chaos-monkey tariffs <https://www.dallasfed.org/research/surveys/tbos/2025/2504q#tab-tmos>:

Share DeLong's Grasping Reality Weblog

Let’s just leave it there.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

If reading this gets you Value Above Replacement, then become a free subscriber to this newsletter. And forward it! And if your VAR from this newsletter is in the three digits or more each year, please become a paid subscriber! I am trying to make you readers—and myself—smarter. Please tell me if I succeed, or how I fail…##crosspost-justin-wolfers-did-trumps-tariffs-achieve-trumps-goals
##macro-outlook
##neofascism
##chaos-monkey
##crosspost
##justin-subheadline-i-didnt-grade-the-trade-war-against-an-economists-ideal-i-graded-it-against-trumps-own-promises-f-justin-says-due-to-wrong-beliefs-about-how-world-trade-works-i-disagree
#justin-wolfers-did-trumps-tariffs-achieve-trumps-goals
#justin-wolfers
#did-trumps-tariffs-achieve-trumps-goals
#trump-tariffs
#trade-wars
#rare-earths
#platypus-economics
#trade-is-productive-cooperation