Coyote Blog

I lost a fair bit of money shorting Tesla ($TSLA) stock until I realized that its stock price was absolutely untethered to reality.  And we see this today as the stock is currently up 4% following yesterday's miserable earning report.  The "growth" stock with a P/E ratio of 111 reported its 9th straight quarter of flat revenues and 12th straight quarter of essentially flat to down profits (source CNBC).

There is a nice Cramer cameo in the movie Ironman where he screams "that's a weapons company that doesn't make weapons."  Tesla is the growth company that doesn't grow.  So of course, without growth, the Tesla stock fans are driving up that triple digit PE even higher

The only explanation seems to be statements from Elon at the earnings unboxing session yesterday:

Musk has been telling investors in recent quarters to focus less on the core business as it exists today and more on a future of autonomy and robotics.

In October, Tesla drummed up excitement among fans by showing off an early prototype version of a Cybercab at its “We, Robot” event. However, Tesla still does not produce robotaxis. Instead, the company sells a premium version of its partially automated driving system called FSD, short for Full Self-Driving (Supervised)....

While Tesla did not give specific guidance for this year, the company said, “we expect the vehicle business to return to growth in 2025.” It also reiterated plans to “unlock an unsupervised FSD option” eventually and said it expects to “begin launching” its driverless ride-hailing business “later this year in parts of the U.S.”

Wow, every CEO should try this after bad results.  "Focus less on the business as it is today and more on a vague, unspecified vision of how it might be better in the future."  This is the same sort of Musk handwaving we have seen for years.  The full-self-driving promise dates well back pre-COVID.   Honestly, having seen the state of FSD on Teslas, I fear for the residents of Austin where Musk claims there will be robotaxis in action later this year**.   I found this to be the most interesting piece of hopium:

The company’s stock price has rallied sharply since Trump’s victory in November as investors bet that Musk’s influence would lead to both favorable policies and less oversight of his companies.

Seriously?  In his first executive orders Trump has killed most of the mandates and subsidies on which the company has relied.

** Footnote:  You know where there are lots of robotaxis in action and have been for years?  Phoenix.  Waymo has become a fixture of the Phoenix and Scottsdale streets.   Everyone here loves them.  Yesterday I tried to get a picture but I was too late, but near my home there were three waymo's side by side going up the boulevard.  Go to any fancy club that attracts a lot of young people, like the bar on the roof of the new Global Ambassador Hotel, and you will see one Waymo after another dropping (mostly) young women off.   Women love these things because they feel safer without the driver.  I love them because they are about the only thing I see every day that looks like what I was promised about the future when I was a kid.   Musk has a long way to go to prove his camera-only sensing approach can match the LIDAR-rich Waymo strategy.

Postscript:  I know this will seem crazy, but it is possible to have mixed feelings about an individual:  people are not all Mother Theresa or all Hitler.  Musk's management of Tesla really irritates me and some things, like his fake Saudi tender offer or the SolarCity buyout, strike me as straight-up fraudulent (how many solar roofs were sold last quarter, Tesla?)  But I love everything that SpaceX is doing and I think Musk has done great work shining the light on certain issues from government waste to grooming gang coverup in the UK.

The new EU regulations on device charging standards are a really bad idea.  Via engadget:

The European Parliament has voted to make USB-C the common charging standard in the EU. All mobile devices with up to 100W power delivery (including phones, tablets and earbuds) sold in the region will have to come with a USB-C charging port by the end of 2024. Laptops will need to make the switch by spring 2026. Products that come to market before these deadlines won't be affected.

Most people I talk to seem to love this.   It is a relief for folks to know that all their devices will charge from the same cord, though it is already that way in my life because I have explicitly bought all my devices to use USB-C.  Yes, I have already standardized on USB-C myself so I have no problem at this moment in time with that charging technology.  The problem is the qualifier -- this moment in time.  Any government regulation that freezes technology in place is a really bad idea.  Sure, the EU says they are open to new technologies, but this makes adopting a new technology a matter of getting permission from one of the slowest and least efficient regulatory bodies on the planet.  When mobile phone technology cycles are 6-18 months long, who is going to bother with spending 3-5 years to get EU permission on a new approach.

When I go on rants like this with people I know, they tell me to calm down -- what, after all, would need to be changed with USB-C?  My answer is: "possibly everything".

Thank God we did not try to do this 15 years ago when mobile phone and charging technology was in flux.  Oh wait, we did!  Because we came inches away from similar charging standard regulation for phones about 2009.  Here is the article in Mother Jones lauding the United Nations-designed (!!) cell phone charger:

Good news: The [United Nationals Telecommunications] Union just approved a universal charger. If enough manufacturers adopt it, the industry could make half as many chargers—thus reducing greenhouse gases from manufacturing and transporting replacement chargers by as much as 15 to 24 million tons a year.

Bonus: The universal charger will likely use half as much energy on standby as conventional chargers, solving the “wall wart” problem.

The EU was trying to do the same thing in 2009, though fortunately it was voluntary.

The articles are helpfully illustrated with pictures of the handsets they were designing for:

Yes, had international regulators had their way 16 years ago, we would be stuck with something designed for these phones where one texted hello as 4433555555666.  It does not take hindsight to understand why this was a bad idea.  I wrote at the time:

There are at least two problems with this.  The first is that consumers are all different.   A lot of cell phones (and other devices like my kindle) are standardizing on a mini-USB connection.  Should I use the UN's solution, which is likely inferior?  Why?  Most of the time I don't even travel with a charger, I plug the mini-USB into my computer to charge.  That way I only have 1 charger on the road, for my computer.  You want me to carry 2, in the name of having fewer chargers?   You might say, "well, I hadn't thought of this situation," and I would say, "that's the point - you can't, there are 6 billion of us individuals out there."

The second problem is innovation.  Who says that innovation won't demand a different type of connection in 2 years?  Do you really want your technology gated to some working group at the UN?  Go back in time and imagine the government locking in a standard on something.  We still would have 801.11a wireless only, or cars would still all have crank starts (but they would all turn the same direction!) or cars would all have the same size wheels.  If the UN had invented something 3 years ago, it would have been power only and not data.  Today, most cell phones have power connections and connectors that double as data ports.

So many things would have been wrong with these.  They were power only and not data and power as we use today.  The cable was hard-wired to the wall-wart which would be incredibly annoying today.  It would have been either an old barrel connector, or if it was a form of USB it would likely have been one of the old hated non-symmetrical kind.  I don't think there was any data capability but if there were it would have been horribly slow.

Every single EU regulator would look at that old standard and say, yes it was misguided and would have been a mistake.  But THIS time it is smart?

Like many who do business in California, I often complain about the regulatory burden (free at last!)  People will ask, "So what one regulation would you get rid of?"  The problem is that this is a really hard question to answer because in most cases it is not any one regulation in particular, but the accumulation of regulation.  When a building collapses under a snow load, it is impossible to blame any single snowflake.

Have you noticed when you buy a product, you still get an insert that looks like the old instruction manuals we used to get, but that is in fact just page after page of legal and safety warnings with the actual useful stuff moved online?  Well companies have the same thing for employees, typically called an employee handbook.   Most of this is not really useful to employees but it is critical for compliance with a myriad of government regulations.  Our company always had an employee handbook, but starting around 2005 we were forced to have two -- one for California and one for everywhere else.   Each were reviewed and updated every few years.  Then in 2012 or so we were forced to switch to annual updates of the California handbook.   And then around 2018 we had to shift to twice a year updates of the California handbook, as the California legislature was creating so many new rules every session and California courts were creating so many new precedents and interpretation of existing rules that we had to constantly work to keep up with it.

Rules for meal breaks, arbitration agreements, non-compete agreements, cell phone use, background screening, privacy notices, and a million other things kept changing.  Just to pick one example at random, the California legislature keeps adding new forms of employee leave entitlements to this list:

• Sick Leave
• New Parent Leave
• Pregnancy Disability Leave
• Family and Medical Leave
• Bereavement Leave
• Voting Leave
• Jury Duty or Subpoena Leave
• Domestic Violence Victim Leave
• Crime Victims Leave
• Leave for School Activities
• Literacy Education Leave
• Drug/Alcohol Rehab Leave
• Kin Care
• Organ Donor/Bone Marrow Donor Leave
• Military Injury Leave
• Military Spouse Leave
• Reproductive Loss Leave

The last one I think really gives you a flavor of how the California Legislature spends its time.  Here is more detail:

Under Government Code 12945.6 (SB 848), employees at a company with at least five employees are allowed to take five days of leave within three months of a:

• failed adoption,
• failed surrogacy,
• miscarriage,
• stillbirth, or
• an unsuccessful assisted reproduction.

Seriously -- someone had to get worked up enough to create and sponsor a bill and push it through the entire process and get the governor to sign it to provide mandatory work leave for someone whose artificial insemination did not yield a child on the first try.  Good God my brother-in-law probably would have built up 6 months of leave as he had to try for years to finally be successfully, so long we started calling him the sperminator from all the times he had to fill a cup.

There is nothing too small to catch the California legislature's regulatory eye.   And almost every one of these laws might individually look OK or at least strike some empathy chord.  But in sum it is just overwhelming, particularly when it will not sit still.  There is always more and more piling on.

I will tell you a California labor regulation story.   California requires every employee to get a 30-minute unpaid meal break after working a certain number of hours.  The requirement is not to give the employee an opportunity to eat undisturbed, the employer has an affirmative obligation to make sure the employee gets and TAKES their meal break.   That seems like a nice thing to do -- what kind of Scrooge would deny their folks lunch?

Our first interaction with this law happened years ago where we had a gatehouse at a lake in California that required someone in it for 8 hours.  But by California meal break rules, we had to allow them an unpaid lunch for 30 minutes in the middle of that so they only got paid 7.5 hours per day.  Several employees who had this shift on various days approached us and begged to be able to work through lunch because they needed the extra money.  We let them.  And then come October (timed to get money for Christmas) and boom we get hit with a suit (turns out they were being advised the whole time and the entire situation was a trap they explicitly set for us).  We eventually had to settle -- though we had their request in writing, a California court decided that the employee could only waive their right to a work-free meal break with a signed letter EVERY DAY.  After this the rules got tighter and tighter.  Later we got sued when an employee who was wearing a company radio got a call on the radio during their break.  Boom, another suit for not giving them an uninterrupted 30 minutes without work.  So we started requiring everyone to check their radios and cell phones in a special locker before their break.  Eventually, to avoid lawsuits, we automatically paid the 1 hour missed meal penalty to any employee who started their lunch late -- we hired an extra person in the payroll department to audit time cards looking for meal break violations.  But then a few employees were intentionally starting their lunch late in order to collect the penalty.   Eventually we got to the insane work rule -- a rule that many companies in California have -- that it is a firing offense not to take one's meal break and to start it no later than 4:49 into their shift.

And this is just one example.  We have gone through similar hoops on everything from mediation agreements to background screening.

However, I will answer the question of what one or two regulations I would get rid of it I could waive a magic wand.  I would say

1.  the private attorney general act (PAGA) because it makes all the others worse.  PAGA authorizes aggrieved employees to file lawsuits to recover civil penalties on behalf of the State of California for Labor Code violations.
2.  The other change I would make is to eliminate the California Coastal Commission.  This is the single most destructive regulatory agency I have ever encountered, made worse by its incredible mission and scope creep and the fact that it has a history of giving special treatment to those with friends on the board or some kind of political pull.

Yes, it is "systemic" not "systematic".  Oops.  I will not re-edit the post because I am past feeling the need to cover up my dumber moments.

I pretty much hate the term "systematic racism," which is a clever rebranding by the DEI folks of the Christian concept of "original sin."  Try to tell the Church that you have behaved ethically?  Doesn't matter, you still need us to remove the stain of your original sin.  Try to tell the DEI trainer you don't have a racism problem?  Doesn't matter how you act, you are part of the systematic racism.

I want to go on a brief (but typical of this blog) digression.

Years ago, probably in 2017 after the Charlottesville / proud boys kerfuffle, I had a Jewish friend express his concern about rising Right-wing antisemitism.  He and I don't really talk politics much but my sense is that -- like many Jewish voters in the Northeast -- he is a reliable Democratic vote.  I remember telling him that I really did not think the sort of knuckleheads at Charlottesville presented much of a threat.  He asked me why.

I had to think about if for a minute -- I had a gut feel my statement was true but I had not really thought about it carefully enough to understand why.  After pondering it for part of dinner I finally said that I didn't think the antisemites (and overt racists) on the Right were a threat because most of them were low-status.  They did not have the power to do anything.  It's not like they were hiring for Bank of America or on the admissions committee at Harvard.  People with any sort of status or authority on the Right did not respect or follow these people (they might shill for their votes, but politicians of all stripes pander to the most absurd fringes of their part for votes).  [Almost without thinking about it I said that if I were he, I would be more worried about antisemitism from the Left, because the folks in the BDS movement (for example) on universities are just the opposite of antisemites on the Right -- they are among the elite.  I seldom am very prescient on cultural trends, but at the time I was very involved with the issue of discrimination against Asians at Princeton, and I thought I saw some parallels with Jews.  I think we have all seen the explosion of antisemitism that has come out of the mainly Leftish elite over the last year].

When I grew up in the South in the 1960s and 1970s, racism was overt.  Things began to improve remarkably in the by 1980, though I remember at that point my dad could not get the Exxon CFO into our country club because he was Jewish and there was pushback when George Forman tried to buy a house in tony River Oaks.  By 2000, a generation later, much of that crap was gone, or at least way better.  But they key change that should have made these changes sustainable was that racism was not only isolated to lower-status groups, but it became seen as a marker for being low-status.  Demonstrating racism became the reverse of virtue-signaling -- it marked one as a loser.

If there is such a thing as systematic racism, then it has to be perpetrated by people who are part of the system.  People like the proud boys are outsiders -- I guarantee they are not on any country club membership committees.  They are not determining Ivy League admissions.  They are not hiring at Goldman Sachs.

I do think the system goes wrong for blacks but it is not in any arena controlled by the proud boys.  And I  have a strong opinion on where that system failure lies:  K through 12 education, and probably even more specifically K-5 education.  We have affirmative action in the workplace for blacks.  Why?  Because there do not seem to be enough prepared candidates so we give less-prepared candidates a leg up.  Before that we have affirmative action in college for blacks.  Why?  Because there do not seem to be enough prepared candidates so we give less-prepared candidates a leg up.  We keep changing the SAT test.  Why?  Because blacks historically struggle to score as well as whites and other races on the test.  We keep changing (lowering) high school graduation requirements.  Why?  Because to many black children fail to graduate with the higher standards.

All of this stuff are after-the-fact attempted work-arounds that avoid fixing the real problem:  K-12 education is totally failing black kids.  Any root cause failure analysis would get to this conclusion.  You want to say that systematic racism exists?  Well here is the place where the system is totally failing one race.  If I were more of an expert, I could probably tell you which grade it is where things go off the rails but my guess is that it is an early grade where reading and basic math are not getting taught.

If I were the biggest racist in history and wanted to come up with a Dr Evil scheme to destroy blacks in America, I could not come up with a better plan than the K-12 education system, particularly in many large cities.  So here lies systematic racism, right?

Well, here lies the systematic failure to help African-Americans towards prosperity.  But it is hard to call it racism when in most of these cities the entire school board, the city council, and the mayor are all black or mostly black.  Here is the school board in E. St Louis -- not many proud boys there.  Here it is in Chicago.  Both of these districts are lavishly funded -- East St Louis spends over $25,000 per student and has a 12:1 teacher ratio  (the national average is about $18,000 per pupil and 14:1).  The student body is 96% black and US News report that in E. St Louis  "4% of high school students tested at or above the proficient level for reading, and 7% tested at or above that level for math."  Well no surprise that Blacks are struggling when freaking 96% of them graduate from public school systems like this without being able to read.  No affirmative action plan ever invented is going to magically create a future for adults who can't read or do math.

This is a f*cking crime, and it has nothing to do with racism or funding.  Trump can make headlines getting rid of DEI programs -- fine, they were a fix for this problem that was never going to work.  But until we seriously talk about public school education, we are not serious about fixing the systematic problems blacks face.  And the system is going to fight back hard.  Already folks in the system are telling us that the testing that shows blacks doing poorly should be eliminated.  Why?  Well they say it is to help blacks but that can't possibly be true.  Its like telling me that I am better off not getting a cancer test and finding out I have cancer.  The push to eliminate testing is a push to cover up this absolute tragedy by the insiders who are a part of it.

Anyone think there are some smart people out there with access to capital that could provide a better education privately for $25,000** a year in a school choice system?

** Postscript:  $25,000 is an average.  Typically in most school systems elementary school costs might be half the average and high school 150-200% of the average.

There is lots of regulation coming out of California of late attempting to prevent prices from rising in a temporary supply-demand mismatch (often called "Gouging").  I don't have time today to write something tailored to California but I will repost part of my economic lesson I use for a high school class that touches on price gouging.

We begin with the governor of Florida who has just signed an anti-price-gouging law.  We talk about how everyone hates price-gouging after a disaster.  What could be worse, right?

We then talk about a woman who spends most of her time at home, but rushes out to fill her gas tank right after the storm hits.  She has to wait in line for gas for 2 hours because everyone else has done the same as she, racing to the station, but she doesn't mind because she doesn't have anything else to do and feels better.  If asked if she would have topped off her tank if the price jumped to $6 from $3, she says no way.

Then we have an owner of a roofing company enter the fray.  His men are working 14 hours a day to put roofs on houses.  He is making a lot of money, and doing a lot of good as well.  Nothing is more important to people than fixing the roof before the next rain.  He may be the most important man in Florida at that moment.  But he can't keep up with demand, and worse, his guys are having to sit for 2 hours at a time to fill up their company trucks, when they should be repairing roofs.   He would gladly pay $10 a gallon if he could just keep his men on the job and not in gas stations.

So at this point we discuss "fairness".  It seems fair not to raise prices to "take advantage" of a disaster.  But is it fair to allocate gas away from the busiest and most productive whose time is most valuable to the people who are least productive and have the lowest value for their time?  We discuss how price caps shift rationing from price to queuing, and the people who get the product shift from those who most value it to those who assign the lowest value to their own time.

Finally, we discuss a guy in Georgia who has a tanker of gas he was going to send to a station in Atlanta.  They need the gas more in Florida, but they aren't paying more for it under the new price-gouging law, and so with his higher costs of driving all the way to Florida vs. Atlanta he is going to sell the gas in Atlanta.  If the price of gas in Florida were to rise to $6, he would send his truck of gas to Florida in a heartbeat.

This is the kind of discussion we have.   We will end up in a debate, with kids pointing out all kinds of things -- eg poor people who have a life or death need and might be shut out at $6.  We don't try to resolve things, but want them to understand there are unseen consequences to actions like price-gouging laws that must be considered along with the seen.  They may end up dismissing the unseen as less important than the seen, but it should not be ignored.

I know, with like 200 executive orders already in this administration, it is hard to imagine one was missing.  But if I were the victim of some sort of horrible karma and found myself as President, I was thinking about what EO I might sign (other than one repealing all the others).  This is what I came up with:

Subject:  Federal Transparency

I hereby order that all Federal agencies, from this day forward, follow the letter of the f*cking law in the Freedom of Information Act.  All requests will be processed in a timely manner as specified in the law and all redactions will be made solely based on the exceptions allowed in the law and those exceptions will be interpreted narrowly.  Redactions in any document released to the public solely to protect the reputation of an individual or agency shall be grounds for immediate termination of those involved [update:   here is a famous example]

Further, all public business will be handled through public channels and will be archived as required by law.  Anyone attempting to conduct public business through private channels that cannot be archived or FOIA'd will be subject to immediate termination.

Further, within 90 days the US military, the US state department, and all intelligence agencies are required to submit to me proposed updated guidelines and processes for marking documents as classified or secret with the goal of reducing documents with any sort of classification by 90%.  Anyone found to be over-classifying documents to protect an individual or agency's reputation will be subject to immediate termination.

If I knew more about Federal organization I would probably propose pulling FOIA officers out of their agencies and into some new group.  Maybe we pull out all the Inspector Generals as well and put them in that new group too.

Postscript

Who the heck remembers all the stuff like this to do day 1?  I can't remember that my wife told me to start the dishwasher at the next commercial.

When Trump took office in 2017, I thought there was a reasonable chance that he would pardon Hillary Clinton.  I thought this was just the sort of schoolyard trick Trump might play -- after all, what better way to tar someone as guilty when they have not even been indicted for anything**. Trump didn't do it.

But now Biden has.  And to his own family.  Wow.

In his last hours of office Biden issued pre-emptive pardons for numerous people who have not even been charged with any crime.  Sort of blanket get out of jail free cards for any federal offense they might be accused of.  The act feels unprecedented, though I remember that President Bush did something similar for Donald Rumsfeld.  But it is certainly unprecedented in its scope.  He pardoned

• General Milley (who called Trump "fascist to the core" and a "wannabe dictator")
• Much of his family, including all his siblings and their spouses.  Republican Congressional investigators believe that Biden family members funneled foreign bribe money to Biden when he was Vice-President.   Certainly their family has extraordinarily complex financial arrangements, sending money to each other through a variety of shell corporations
• The entire J6 committee, which is sort of weird as they already should have immunity through the speech and debate clause
• Anthony Fauci

The legal case most folks are looking at right now is Burdick vs United States  which says that 1) a pardon can be rejected and 2) acceptance of a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it," though it is disputed whether this latter is a binding precedent.  Getting such an un-asked for blanket pardon certainly seems a mixed blessing.  Think about John Owens, his brother-in-law.  Did anyone have him on their radar before, because NOW they do.

I know some are p*ssed off that they cannot put Liz Cheney or Anthony Fauci in jail.  Personally I am relieved.  The Biden administration set some horrible precedents in prosecution of its enemies, perhaps some of the worst since Nixon.  We are at a tipping point between dialing back on this sort of banana-republic-style political retribution or going into full-on Sicilian vendetta wars.  I have had lots of people disagree with me on this, but I think we need to turn the other cheek here and find intermediate ways to enforce accountability.  Trump's revocation of the security clearances of the folks who made up a Russian conspiracy to discredit the evidence of Hunter Biden's laptop seems like a reasonable approach.

But there is a silver lining to all this that I posted on X the morning the pardons were announced -- without the looming threat of prosecution, there is no room to plead the 5th.  The most interesting person to get under oath to answer questions is going to be Fauci, of course.  I worry that we have not found the boundaries of gain-of-function research and that dangerous research is still going on and being funded by government organizations (most recently I have seen rumors that the Department of Agriculture has been funding gain of function on diseases that affect livestock).  There is so much this guy needs to be asked under oath -- Covid origins, suppression of opposing speech, the vaccine trials, coordination with the teachers unions on school recommendations, etc etc -- that the hearings could last weeks.

Biden's legacy, such that it is, could also be in some danger.  No one is going to prosecute the guy, for the same reason that Hur did not, but there are sure a lot of suspicious financial transactions running back and forth through his family and a myriad of shell companies.

**Postscript:  For those with a short memory, Clinton moved her email to a private server in an attempt avoid FOIA and in so doing probably allowed classified information to sit on a poorly secured computer in her house.  I would have said that neither of these sorts of errors or crimes would reasonably ever be prosecuted (at least at that seniority), that is until I saw FBI agents descend on Mar-a-Lago looking for poorly secured classified documents.  It should be noted that despite the fears of many folks on the Left, Trump did not prosecute Clinton.

As expected, Trump gave notice yesterday to the UN that the US is pulling out of the Paris climate accords.  This marks the second time he has done so, making participation in these accords one of the EO ping pong balls that get swatted back and forth every inauguration day.

The reason this is possible is that supporters of these accords have never submitted the agreement to the Senate for ratification, which would make the terms of the agreement more legally binding and much harder to casually reverse.  Per Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:

[the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

Woodrow Wilson spent a huge amount of time, most of his remaining prestige, and probably his remaining health negotiating the Versailles Treaty, but it was all for nothing in this country because the Senate did not approve the treat, which is why we were never in the League of Nations.**

My understanding is that something like the Paris Climate Accords there is actually a potentially less daunting way to adopt the accords as US law without getting a 2/3 vote in the Senate -- legislation could be crafted with rules mirroring the commitments in the Accords and then passed normally through the House and Senate.

Neither of these courses were pursued by President Obama or President Biden, even when they possessed Congressional majorities.  This is likely because -- whatever their public position is on climate change -- legislators know that adopting economically expensive mandates in an international agreement that are not matched by countries like China and India (see below) is wildly unpopular.  And so the basic approach has been to negotiate and "commit" the US to these agreements by unilateral executive action, and then attempt to use the regulatory tools available to the Administration to attempt to comply. [A more cynical view is that US Presidents have done what every other world leader has done in signing these pacts-- sign them as a virtue-signaling position with no idea of how to meet the commitments and perhaps no real intention of doing so].

Update:  This is really a stunning chart.  We have returned to the same carbon intensity we had before the Civil War.

** It is also why US wine producers, at least until a new treaty with the EU was approved in 2006, could legally use the word "champagne" to describe certain types of sparkling wine.  The history on this is complicated, and goes back further, but essentially the international agreement to not allow any wine outside of the Champagne region of France to use that name was embodied into the Treaty of Versailles, which the US did not ratify.  There is an organization called the CIVC which is essentially the Champagne union that defends the champagne IP, sometimes to ridiculous ends (reminiscent of the NFL and the word "Superbowl.")  I remember they sued Apple over calling a gold/bronze iphone color "champagne".

Nearly 200 new Executive Orders?  If I do nothing else I can still blog for weeks just going through the list.  (Update:  the full list of actions is here.  The list of past EO recissions is here.)

Over a third of these are reversals of Biden EO's, which I can't really complain about.  Hopefully student loan bailouts are dead for good, for example.

Some are the usual brand of political virtue-signaling idiocy (eg the one asking all government departments to go after inflation). Everything old is new again:

Some of the EO's are a new and uniquely Trumpian brand of virtue-signaling idiocy (eg the Gulf of America).  Maybe Canada will respond by renaming Lake Superior as Lake Canada or Lake Trudeau.  I don't get quite as worked up about renaming Mt Denali back to Mt McKinley, but the justification is hilarious -- to celebrate American greatness.  By naming it McKinley?!  So was Mt Jewel a non-starter?

But the EO's that really caught my eye and I want to comment on first are the ones declaring national emergencies, presumably to give the Administration special authority to pretty much ignore every other branch of government.  I really hate this idea, but it is particularly incredible given that Trump and the Republicans (rightly) chafed for years under authoritarian actions taken by the President and various governors under the guise of a COVID emergency.  So having railed for four years against declaring a national emergency to buff up the Administration's unaccountable power, Trump is going to declare two?

The border emergency declaration is not unexpected, and though I disagree with it, at least the situation there has the virtue of being fairly unprecedented (at least in the size of the border crossing numbers).  But energy?  What the F is the national emergency in energy?  Sure there is a lot of stupidity in our energy policy and lots of things that need fixing, but there has been for decades.  Having lived through the gas lines of 1972 and 1978 and the Three Mile Island emergency and oil prices that have swung from $10 to $130 and back again over time, its hard to imagine anything in the current energy markets that could be considered an emergency (now if we were all living in Germany, I might come to a different conclusion).  (Update, here is the Energy Emergency EO)

One other bit of bipartisan hypocrisy.  For the last several years Democrats have blasted Conservative critics for carrying every challenge of a Biden law or regulation down to U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Texas, who became a pretty reliable go-to judge when a national injunction was wanted.  Where did the Republicans ever get this idea?  Perhaps from Democrats, who carried every Trump EO and regulation over to Hawaii and Judge Derrick K. Watson who would reliably enjoin all of Trump's efforts.  My guess is that Judge Watson is about to get busy again.   Maybe we should have an over-under betting pool to the first national injunction of a Trump EO.  In 2017 it was 7 days, for example, from the time Trump issued his travel ban until it was first enjoined and 9 days between the 2nd travel ban and when Watson issued his national injunction.

Well, just as I was spooling up to do some real posting for the first time in years, I started to run into problems on the server.  Turns out I am running a really old OS, the Linux version of WindowsME.  At least at my host, this update requires migration to a new server, so that will be happening.  The good news is that my new dedicated server is way cheaper than the old one.

At the age of about 60, my wife began having terrible pain in her hip.  For about a year, this greatly limited her ability to walk longer distances.  One of her great joys, exploring new places on foot, was suddenly impossible to pursue.  And then the pain got so bad  that she could barely sleep, making her life pretty miserable.  Projecting forward years or even months, at the pace things were getting worse, it is hard to imagine any sort of reasonably enjoyable life.  In any other era in the history of human beings, her life would have been effectively over.

But in her case it wasn't.  She had a relatively routine operation where the doctor cut into her leg, carved out a large part of the femur and socket joint, and replaced it with a contraption of titanium, cobalt-chromium, ceramic and plastic.   Sixty years ago this operation was unheard of, and 100 years ago many of the materials used were unknown.  But now we do it routinely.  I have a partial knee replacement that is only weeks old and walked 3 miles on it this morning.  It is unusual for me to meet anyone my age or older who doesn't have some sort of prosthesis, whether it be a joint replacement or a heart stent or a pacemaker.  What we all have in common is that a century ago our lives would likely either be literally over or at least so painful we might wish it were so.

This may seem like an odd way to restart my blogging, but before I spend the coming months and years criticizing everything and everyone, it is worth remembering that we live in the greatest time in human history.  The median human experience in all of history is miserable subsistence poverty.  At least until the recent explosion of wealth and mass escape from poverty that has characterized the last 75 years, the 95th percentile human experience was probably subsistence poverty. Everyone alive today is probably in the top 10% or even 1% of historical humans in terms of income and well-being.  This is even more so for a resident of the US, where even a person on the poverty line in the United States today, say around the 20th percentile of income, is likely in the 80-90th percentile worldwide.**

The times we live in are a miracle.  We are all richer on any reasonable metric, except absolute value of our bank accounts, than the richest men of the gilded age, say in 1870.  Years and years ago I compared a modest house in my neighborhood with the crazy huge mansion of Mark Hopkins.  I wrote:

One house has hot and cold running water, central air conditioning, electricity and flush toilets.  The other does not.  One owner has a a computer, a high speed connection to the Internet, a DVD player with a movie collection, and several television sets.  The other has none of these things.  One owner has a refrigerator, a vacuum cleaner, a toaster oven, an iPod, an alarm clock that plays music in the morning, a coffee maker, and a decent car.  The other has none of these.  One owner has ice cubes for his lemonade, while the other has to drink his warm in the summer time.  One owner can pick up the telephone and do business with anyone in the world, while the other had to travel by train and ship for days (or weeks) to conduct business in real time.

I think most of you have guessed by now that the homeowner with all the wonderful products of wealth, from cars to stereo systems, lives on the right (the former home of a friend of mine in the Seattle area).  The home on the left was owned by Mark Hopkins, railroad millionaire and one of the most powerful men of his age in California.  Hopkins had a mansion with zillions of rooms and servants to cook and clean for him, but he never saw a movie, never listened to music except when it was live, never crossed the country in less than a week.  And while he could afford numerous servants around the house, Hopkins (like his business associates) tended to work 6 and 7 day weeks of 70 hours or more, in part due to the total lack of business productivity tools (telephone, computer, air travel, etc.) we take for granted.  Hopkins likely never read after dark by any light other than a flame.

If Mark Hopkins or any of his family contracted cancer, TB, polio, heart disease, or even appendicitis, they would probably die.  All the rage today is to moan about people's access to health care, but Hopkins had less access to health care than the poorest resident of East St. Louis.  Hopkins died at 64, an old man in an era where the average life span was in the early forties.  He saw at least one of his children die young, as most others of his age did.  In fact, Stanford University owes its founding to the early death (at 15) of the son of Leland Stanford, Hopkin's business partner and neighbor.  The richest men of his age had more than a ten times greater chance of seeing at least one of their kids die young than the poorest person in the US does today.

You don't even have to go back to the 19th century to find high childhood death rates.  Both my mom and dad (who were born in the 1920s and 1930s) lost a brother when they were young to disease, both whooping cough I think.  My dad contracted polio as a teen and never regained full strength in one leg.  They both talked about these things like they were so normal -- I am sure it was a tragedy for the families but a sort of normal and expected tragedy.

Most of the issues that have people convinced that everything is awful are not so daunting when viewed on a historic scale.

The environment?  The air in cities is immeasurably cleaner than when I grew up  (I remember smog so think in LA you couldn't see anything).  Water quality is better, litter has almost completely disappeared (at least compared to when I grew up).   The thing that never really gets mentioned in lovely period pieces like Bridgerton is just how bad everything smelled and how dangerous the water was. Today, we tend to be arguing over smaller and smaller concentrations of smaller and smaller risks.  There is the climate issue of course, but many of the disasters blamed on climate change are historically typical and have little to do with warming temperatures (starting with the LA fires).  We will get back to climate in due course.

Or take the issue of race.  Growing up in the South in the 1960s and 1970s, the improvements we have seen in race relations, at least until about 2000, were remarkable.  Tribalism and xenophobia are too wired into humans to purge entirely, but to a remarkable extent in the US we had limited overt racism to the low status fringe.  Another generation or two and we were well-positioned for a truly race-blind society.  [We have unfortunately lost ground on this in the last 25 years, as racism and anti-semitism seem to have re-emerged in high-status groups from a toxic mix of marxism and falling academic standards.   But I have hope]

This is not to say that life doesn't suck for many people on Earth.  Though there are billions fewer than fifty years ago, you could be one of a billion people living in less than $1 a day poverty.  You could be a woman living in virtual slavery in Iran, a mother who just wants her kids to survive in Gaza, or a Russian soldier enduring years at war in the Ukraine.  But for the vast majority of people on Earth, and for a huge proportion of the people in this county, the Earth is the best world we have ever had.  Understanding that, and the connection between our current prosperity and ideas like individual rights, capitalism, free trade and scientific inquiry will continue to be a key focus of this blog.

I am not a Pollyanna -- I see threats and worrying trends in every direction, and will be writing about them.  For example, tomorrow we trade a President with an immense set of flaws for another with an immense set of entirely different flaws.  Perhaps I am not as disappointed as some by recent trends because I have always treated politicians and the media and academia with immense skepticism, so I am less surprised by their obvious failings.  I have always expected people in power -- government, corporations, wherever -- to abuse their power and believe the trick is to wire the system in a way that they cannot do too much damage.  In preparation for blogging again, and looking back over my old writing, one consistent theme I see is a disdain for solutions that boil down to "if only we replace their people with our people."  That's a hopeless approach.  We have flip-flopped the Coke and Pepsi parties in power more times in the last 50 years than we did in 100+ years before that, and its not making things better.  If anything its escalating a tit for tat power grab as each new administration pushes the precedent frontier forward more toward Presidential authoritarian power.  This is not a secret: Trump is bragging about it.

One of my first long-form posts will be on the breakdown of the US political consensus around free speech and free trade.  Both concepts have been critical to the prosperity I write about above, but both are concepts politicians tend to shy away from (free speech allows their opposition to speak out and potentially remove them from power, while free trade limits the economic spoils they can dole out to powerful labor and business supporters).  To a large extent, US moral and intellection leadership post WWII on free speech and free trade has been critical to keeping these concepts alive around the world against the headwinds of authoritarianism.  Now, with a breakdown of support in the US for both, one wonders what future they have.  More later....

**footnote:  It is remarkably hard to get the data to do this analysis.  Everyone that collates income inequality data wants to show the US as awful so they will compare US only with the US and not with any other countries.  This chart is the closest I have found recently and actually seems to say that the US 20th percentile is about at the world 65th percentile.  But this underestimates the US position since it uses the other major trick of poverty stats -- it omits the effect of taxes and government transfer programs.  No one ever believes me when I tell them, but most poverty stats, including the US poverty line, are based on income without transfers, ie BEFORE the effect of anti-poverty programs.  The stats thus always show no progress on poverty and argue for more government anti-poverty programs while excluding the effect of existing anti-poverty programs from their data.   On a world scale US anti-poverty programs are robust, and we have (again against perceptions) one of the most progressive tax codes anywhere so with the effect of anti-poverty programs my guess is that the US 20th percentile is over the 80th percentile worldwide.  I took a shot at this analysis vs Scandinavian countries quite a while ago here.  When I have a chance, I will see if there is newer raw data available,/footnote

One of the flaws with the older version of this blog is that there was no way for folks to sign up for email digests or emails of posts.  This almost drove me to Medium or Substack but I think I have it solved here on WordPress (the key seems to be to NOT use the wordpress mail function).  There is a sign up box on the website now for the email digest.

By the way, in the general implosion of Disqus several years ago we lost several years of comments.  Sorry.  Older ones are there but are lost for a period of time after about 2020.

Well, I have (mostly) sold my business and eliminated some of the conflicts that restricted my blogging for several years.  Right now, I am trying to get this old blog spooled up with some new features.  Right now I am testing the direct link to X as well as the ability to send our email summaries of posts.

I have considered substack and still have coyoteblog staked out there if need be, but there is a lot of content here I would hate to lose so I am going to try to make wordpress into what I need.