The Illusion of SimplificationFor shareholders of HSBC Holdings PLC, the proposed privatization of Hang Seng Bank (HASE) is a textbook case study of how politics and institutional concerns trump shareholders’ interests. Despite the elegant management’s narrative put forward by HSBC and Hang Seng, such as “simplification,” “alignment,” and “agility,” the ambiguous yet pleasant sounding jargon veil a complex and costly act of capital engineering whose true objective is purely political.At HK$155 per share, the offer represents an implied price-to-book multiple of around 1.7x, valuing HASE at approximately HK$290 billion. That figure stands at a 70% premium to its last reported net asset value and roughly 30% above its trading price before the announcement. For a bank whose profit declined nearly 30% year-on-year (1H 2025), and whose net interest margin contracted by 30 basis points, such a valuation borders on financial hubris.It is, in effect, a buyback of capital already owned, paid for with shareholders’ money, justified by promises of capital efficiency that the bank itself constrains through its political and regulatory entanglements.The Exorbitant Price of ControlIn substance, HSBC already controls HSB—holding roughly 63% of its equity and full management oversight. What the bank does not control is the ability to extract HASE’s excess capital, which remains “stranded” within its own subsidiary structure.HASE’s CET1 ratio of 17.7%, among the highest in Asia, represents an underutilized capital pool. By acquiring the minority stake, HSBC consolidates HASE’s capital base, freeing roughly 320 basis points of CET1 that could be redeployed for share buybacks at the group level.This is not an acquisition for growth—it is an internal reallocation of trapped liquidity, achieved through a premium payment that immediately dilutes shareholder value. The “synergies” are thus rhetorical: HASE already operates with a cost-efficiency ratio of 36.1%, better than nearly all regional peers. There is little room for “streamlining.” Instead, shareholders are being asked to fund a HK$106 billion capital transfer to enable accounting flexibility.The comparison to peers underscores the disconnect:* BOC Hong Kong (2388.HK)—larger, with an ROE near 13%—trades at 1.1x book.* HASE, smaller and less profitable, is being bought at 1.7-1.8x book.HSBC, in other words, is paying a 30% premium over a debt-ridden subsidiary simply to move capital from one pocket to another.The Political Economy of NecessityIf the economics appear irrational, the politics of the deal explain everything. Since 2022, HSBC has been caught between two masters:* In Hong Kong, investors led by Ping An Insurance have pushed for restructuring, demanding higher returns and an Asia spin-off.* In London, the bank faces regulatory pressure to demonstrate commitment to financial stability.By privatizing Hang Seng, HSBC performs a delicate geopolitical balancing act. It signals to Chinese regulators a “long-term commitment to Hong Kong”, while simultaneously consolidating its Asian capital base to appease Western shareholders demanding higher buybacks and dividends.In effect, this is a regulatory appeasement premium—the cost of maintaining political and monetary access to both jurisdictions. The “alignment” rhetoric thus becomes a euphemism for survival in a bifurcated financial world where banking strategy is policy by other means.The Arithmetic of OverpaymentFrom a pure capital allocation standpoint, this transaction challenges fiduciary logic.Consider the accounting chain reaction:* HSBC pays HK$106 billion in cash, reducing its group CET1 ratio by roughly 125 basis points.* The Group pledges to rebuild the ratio through organic generation and a pause on buybacks for three quarters.* The entire justification for the transaction hinges on the eventual redeployment of HASE’s excess CET1 to fund future buybacks.The cycle resembles a closed-loop liquidity arbitrage: spend capital to gain access to capital, then use it to buy back equity.This logic only works if the capital unlocked from HSB significantly exceeds the capital expended—a risky assumption given evolving Basel IV standards and Hong Kong’s conservative supervisory stance. If regulators tighten risk-weight rules or constrain intra-group transfers, the released liquidity could be far less than modeled. In that case, the premium paid becomes permanent goodwill, a dead asset on the balance sheet.The Macroeconomic Backdrop: A Steepening ReckoningThe deal lands amid a shifting macro regime. After years of flat or inverted yield curves, global bond markets are steepening—a signal that funding costs will rise even as loan growth stagnates.For Hong Kong banks, this is a double-edged sword:* Rising long-term yields erode the value of bond portfolios (a key driver of HASE’s fair-value gains in 2025).* Narrowing short-term spreads compress deposit margins, further squeezing Net Interest Income.HSBC’s management may believe that consolidating HSB’s capital allows them to hedge duration risk at the group level and maintain dividend commitments through buybacks. Yet from a shareholder’s standpoint, the transaction amplifies exposure to precisely the market forces eroding bank valuations worldwide: balance sheet duration mismatches, regulatory capital tightening, and higher cost of equity.In a world of rising real yields, paying 1.7x book for a bank whose profitability is decelerating is not capital discipline—it is institutional inertia dressed as strategic foresight.Banks as Instruments of Public PolicyThere is a deeper truth behind the deal. Large universal banks like HSBC no longer operate as pure profit-maximizing entities; they function as quasi-political institutions intertwined with state objectives, regulatory mandates, and social obligations.The Hang Seng privatization is emblematic of this: it is an act of financial statism within the architecture of capitalism—a reminder that in the modern monetary order, liquidity allocation follows legitimacy, not market logic.HSBC’s board knows this. It cannot refuse the political imperative to “invest in Hong Kong.” Nor can it ignore London shareholders’ demand for capital efficiency. The privatization is therefore the least bad option: an expensive but inevitable compromise to sustain access, influence, and relevance in both hemispheres.Conclusion: The Price of PowerFor the skeptical shareholder, this transaction raises the oldest question in finance: whose interests does the bank serve?HSBC frames the privatization as a step toward agility and alignment, but in truth it is a costly reaffirmation of its entanglement with power—regulatory, political, and institutional.It buys goodwill from policymakers, capital flexibility from regulators, and temporary appeasement from investors.But at HK$155 per share, the price of that goodwill is steep, and as the yield curve steepens and the global banking cycle tightens, the market will eventually demand evidence that the capital liberated from Hang Seng was worth the premium paid.Sources: HSBC Joint Announcement, Oct 2025 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe
Two hundred and fifty years is a blink in the span of human civilization. Empires have risen and fallen over centuries; religions have endured for millennia. Yet in that quarter of a millennium, the United States compressed more transformation into its history than perhaps any other society. What makes the American story remarkable is not stability or continuity, but turbulence, risk, and reinvention. Greatness in America was never about being perfect, nor about being “great again.” It was about staying forever young, propelled by institutions strong enough to contain conflict and open enough to reward ambition.From the beginning, America was a society that treated failure differently. In Europe, a bankrupt merchant or failed adventurer carried disgrace for life. In America, bankruptcy was a setback, not a sentence. Laws were forgiving, mobility was real, and newcomers found second chances. Alexis de Tocqueville marveled in the 1830s that Americans launched into trade “as if success or failure had no influence on their future condition.” That tolerance of risk created a culture where turbulence became the price of progress.Alexander Hamilton understood this. Born illegitimate in the Caribbean, he arrived in New York as an outsider with nothing but ambition. As Treasury Secretary, he built the scaffolding of American capitalism: a funded national debt, a national bank, tariffs, excises, and support for industry. His aim was not merely solvency but credibility — to make the republic a trustworthy borrower so that capital would flow. He wrote that “a national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.” To his critics, this sounded reckless. To Hamilton, it was nation-building through trust, a system where finance served opportunity, not just inheritance.Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton’s rival, imagined something different: a republic of yeoman farmers, free from the corruption of banks and cities. He saw Hamilton’s system as a seed of oligarchy. Yet his agrarian ideal was paradoxically sustained by Hamilton’s finance. Without credit, infrastructure, and markets, farmers would remain poor and isolated. Jefferson purchased Louisiana and expanded opportunity, but his farmers needed Hamilton’s canals and credit to prosper. Thus, from the start, America fused two contradictory visions — agrarian egalitarianism and financial capitalism — into a restless hybrid that could adapt.Europe, by contrast, clung to feudal residue. The revolutions of 1848 demanded liberal reform but were crushed by monarchs and aristocrats. Industrialization advanced, but under dynastic control. America was an empire too, but one without emperors. Its legitimacy rested not on bloodlines but on constitutional order. Politics was fiercely partisan, sometimes violent, but elections, not thrones, conferred power. The Civil War tested this experiment. Slavery was the deepest contradiction, but secession also revealed a clash of economic visions: an agrarian system bound to coerced labor versus an industrial, capitalist republic. The Union’s victory destroyed the last vestiges of feudalism and ensured that America would be defined not by cotton but by industry, migration, and knowledge.By 1900, the United States had overtaken Britain as the world’s largest economy. The Gilded Age produced vast fortunes — Rockefeller in oil, Carnegie in steel, Vanderbilt in railroads. Inequality was immense, but unlike Europe, it was fluid rather than permanent. Yesterday’s factory worker could become tomorrow’s shopkeeper. The son of an immigrant could rise into business or politics within a generation. Railroads — more than 170,000 miles laid between 1871 and 1900 — opened markets, lowered barriers, and spread opportunity. Inequality was real, but it was not destiny. America’s mobility made the risk worth taking.Technology amplified this dynamism. Railroads shrank distance. The telegraph and telephone collapsed time. Electricity transformed industry and daily life. Automobiles replaced horse-drawn carriages. Each innovation created new fortunes and destroyed old ones. This was not incremental change but what Joseph Schumpeter later called “creative destruction.” Standard Oil looked unassailable, until new energy and new firms displaced it. Carnegie’s empire seemed permanent, until chemistry and new materials shifted the frontier. In America, permanence was the illusion; disruption was the rule.The Great Depression challenged this ethos. The crash of 1929 was not just a financial panic but a collapse of confidence in capitalism itself. Breadlines stretched across cities, banks failed, unemployment soared. Critics said laissez-faire had run its course. Europe turned to socialism, fascism, and corporatism. Yet America did not abandon capitalism. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal built scaffolding — Social Security, deposit insurance, public works — but it did not create a European-style social democracy. The aim was not to lock society into stability but to buy time for capitalism to heal. And heal it did, through innovation. Even in the depths of depression, America produced advances in aviation, radio, automobiles, and medicine.World War II confirmed the lesson. Before the war, America’s army was smaller than Romania’s. Its strength lay not in troop numbers but in industrial capacity and engineering ingenuity. Within months, Detroit switched from cars to tanks and bombers. Boeing and Douglas scaled aviation to new heights. Bell Labs advanced radar. The Manhattan Project built the atomic bomb. This was capitalism at full throttle: not central planning, but urgency harnessed to flexibility. America won the war not by being the biggest army, but by being the most creative problem-solver.From 1945 to 1973, the “Golden Age of Capitalism” saw productivity surge, wages rise, and the middle class expand. The GI Bill opened universities to veterans and made homeownership widespread. Highways, suburbs, and consumer culture flourished. Inventions like transistors, computers, and space technology reshaped society. For many Europeans, prosperity seemed to come from welfare states. In America, the deeper driver was innovation. Risk, mobility, and reinvention made the middle class possible.Globally, America anchored a new order. At Versailles, Woodrow Wilson’s principles reshaped international law. At Bretton Woods, the dollar became the world’s anchor currency. Even after gold convertibility ended in 1971, the dollar’s credibility held. Washington built institutions — the IMF, World Bank, NATO, GATT — but its true advantage lay in its private sector and financial depth. Wall Street became the clearinghouse of global capital; American corporations designed and managed global supply chains. The United States was not the largest exporter, but it was the orchestrator of value creation.As manufacturing shifted abroad, America became the first true post-industrial society. Deindustrialization looked like decline to some, but it was actually reinvention. The country moved up the value chain: from making goods to designing them, branding them, financing them, and selling them to the world. McDonald’s exported not just hamburgers but a model of management and supply chains. Procter & Gamble exported detergents and the science of marketing. Apple created an ecosystem of design in California and assembly in China, proving that value lies not in factories but in knowledge and coordination. Nvidia’s chips today underpin the artificial intelligence revolution, another American-led transformation.Silicon Valley embodied the cultural difference. Failure was not shame but experience. Venture capital funded untested ideas. Universities like Stanford and MIT incubated startups. Out of this ecosystem came Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook. Europe had engineers, Japan had factories, China had labor. But only America combined risk-tolerant culture, deep finance, world-class universities, and openness to talent. That is why the Information Revolution, like the Industrial Revolution before it, was American-led.The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 seemed to mark the “End of History.” Communism had collapsed; liberal democracy and capitalism looked universal. Yet America’s story was not one of unchallenged triumph. Polarization grew as some regions prospered while others fell behind. The 9/11 attacks reframed security around non-state threats. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq showed the limits of military power in remaking societies. China offered an alternative model through its “Beijing Consensus,” financing infrastructure and state-led growth across the Global South. But this model produced dependency, corruption, and backlash when projects faltered. It lacked legitimacy, the very foundation Hamilton had prized.Today, America faces a paradox. Its government is often reluctant to act as an empire. Fiscal strain and cultural instincts push Washington inward. Yet America remains the greatest beneficiary of globalization. Its true strength lies not only in government but in its decentralized networks of influence. Apple, Nvidia, Microsoft, and Google design the platforms of the digital age. Wall Street clears global capital. Harvard, MIT, and Stanford train leaders who carry American methods worldwide. Hollywood, Netflix, and the NBA project culture into billions of homes. Civil society — NGOs, foundations, churches, think tanks — promotes openness and pluralism. No other society possesses such an interlocking ecosystem of influence.This is why the United States remains exceptional. Its genius has never been in perfection but in reinvention. Its capitalism is turbulent, but turbulence is the price of mobility. Its politics are polarized, but institutions endure. Its inequalities are real, but they are not destiny. America’s greatness is not a thing to be regained. It is the continuing product of a culture that tolerates risk, rewards reinvention, and welcomes newcomers.Ronald Reagan, in hi
It was 1954. Millions of Americans sat glued to their television sets as Senator Joseph McCarthy, once the most feared man in Washington, was humiliated during the Army–McCarthy hearings. “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” the famous rebuke rang out, and the chamber fell silent. For many, it was the moment the fever broke, when the republic seemed to reawaken from a nightmare of suspicion and silence. Yet the deeper story of McCarthyism is not about one demagogue brought low, but about the unsettling ease with which free people turned against the very liberties they had so recently celebrated as the essence of their national identity.The United States, born of a revolution against tyranny and consecrated in the Bill of Rights, prided itself as the world’s beacon of liberty. And yet, within a few years of victory in World War II, it constructed elaborate loyalty programs, compelled citizens to sign oaths renouncing ideological sins, and allowed neighbors, colleagues, and artists to be branded “un-American” for the smallest hint of dissent. How could the land of Jefferson and Lincoln come to mirror, however faintly, the authoritarian systems it opposed abroad?The answer lies in the dynamics of fear, power, and political expediency. The early Cold War was not simply a foreign policy conflict; it was an internal reckoning about who counted as “truly American” and how far the government could go in policing thought. The atomic bomb in Soviet hands, the “loss” of China, and the bloody stalemate in Korea stoked anxieties of betrayal from within. Political entrepreneurs seized the moment, weaponizing patriotism into suspicion, and suspicion into purge. Congress, the FBI, universities, Hollywood studios, and entire professions became arenas where liberty was curtailed in the name of protecting it.But repression did not end with McCarthy’s downfall. The apparatus of surveillance and suspicion outlived him, shaping the boundaries of dissent for decades. And just as telling, the backlash against this era, expressed in the civil rights marches, student uprisings, and cultural revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s, was fueled by a generation determined never again to live in silence. McCarthyism was a wound and a catalyst. It scarred the republic, but it also provoked the most far-reaching reassertion of freedom in modern American history.This essay asks a simple but disturbing question: why do free societies turn against their own freedoms? By tracing the rise, practice, and long shadow of McCarthyism, we can glimpse the fragility of liberty, and understand how American democracy, even in its most fearful moments, carries within it both the seeds of repression and the potential for renewal.Seeds of Suspicion: The Cold War Domestic ContextThe fear that gripped the United States in the late 1940s and early 1950s did not appear out of nowhere. To understand McCarthyism, we must first place ourselves in a world that seemed, to many Americans, to be unraveling.Only a few years earlier, the United States had emerged from World War II as the undisputed leader of the “free world.” It had defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, possessed the world’s strongest economy, and held a monopoly on the atomic bomb. Americans believed they were living in a moment of triumph, with their ideals of liberty and democracy set to guide the world. Yet within a very short span of time, that sense of security collapsed into dread.The Soviet Union, once a war ally, quickly became the United States’ primary adversary. In 1949, the Soviets shocked Washington by detonating their own atomic bomb, ending the U.S. monopoly on nuclear weapons years earlier than expected. That same year, China, the most populous country on earth, fell to Mao Zedong’s Communist Party, which American officials framed as a catastrophic “loss.” And in 1950, North Korea, backed by Moscow and Beijing, launched a surprise invasion of South Korea, pulling U.S. troops into a brutal war on the Korean Peninsula. To many ordinary Americans, it seemed as though communism was advancing everywhere, and that America’s survival was suddenly at stake.But there was another, deeper anxiety: the possibility that America’s enemies were already inside the gates. The idea of “enemies within” became a powerful narrative. If China could “fall,” perhaps it was because of traitors in the State Department. If the Soviets could develop an atomic bomb so quickly, perhaps it was because spies had handed them secrets. The infamous case of Alger Hiss, a former high-ranking State Department official accused of being a Soviet agent, and the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, executed for passing atomic secrets to Moscow, cemented the fear that betrayal was not just theoretical, it was real.The government’s own policies amplified this climate of suspicion. In 1947, President Harry Truman, himself a Democrat and often accused of being “soft” on communism, launched a sweeping Federal Employee Loyalty Program. This required government workers to prove their loyalty and allowed officials to investigate, even dismiss, employees suspected of “subversive” ties. No actual evidence of espionage was necessary. Mere association with the wrong organization could cost a person their livelihood. It was the first nationwide attempt to institutionalize loyalty screening, and it set the precedent that political orthodoxy was now a condition of employment.These measures were not isolated. They reflected a larger cultural mood: Americans had learned to conflate unity with safety. To disagree, to dissent, to appear different in thought or association was suddenly dangerous. It was not just a matter of politics but survival. This atmosphere of fear and conformity prepared the ground for McCarthy’s meteoric rise. When he claimed that communists had infiltrated the government, he was not inventing a new fear. He was tapping into anxieties already deeply rooted in the American psyche.The Rise of McCarthy and Political OpportunismWhen Joseph Raymond McCarthy entered the national spotlight in 1950, he was hardly a household name. Born in 1908 on a Wisconsin farm, he rose from humble origins to study law, practice briefly, and then enter politics. During World War II he served as a Marine Corps officer in the Pacific, earning the nickname “Tailgunner Joe” for his combat flights, though even this part of his biography was later revealed to be heavily embellished.By 1946, McCarthy was elected to the U.S. Senate as a Republican and his fortunes changed in February 1950, when, at a Republican Women’s Club speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, he claimed to have a list of 205 known communists working in the State Department. The number itself shifted in his later retellings, but the headline-grabbing claim electrified audiences. At a moment when Americans were already fearful of betrayal within, McCarthy offered a simple, dramatic answer. The enemy was not just abroad, it was in Washington, and he alone was brave enough to expose it.McCarthy rarely produced verifiable evidence, but his accusations were crafted in ways that forced others to prove their innocence. This inversion of justice, where suspicion itself became condemnation, was enormously powerful in the climate of the early Cold War.Several factors amplified McCarthy’s rise:* Institutional timing: The Republican Party, out of power since the 1930s, was hungry for a wedge issue against Democrats. McCarthy’s accusations allowed them to portray Truman’s administration as weak and compromised.* Media dynamics: Newspapers and, increasingly, television carried McCarthy’s dramatic charges into living rooms across America. For journalists chasing headlines, McCarthy’s bombast was irresistible.* Bureaucratic allies: J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI shared McCarthy’s zeal for rooting out communists, and though Hoover disliked McCarthy personally, the FBI’s surveillance programs lent credibility to the atmosphere of suspicion.By the early 1950s, McCarthy had turned his Senate committee into a stage for televised interrogations. Careers were destroyed, reputations ruined, and institutions, from the State Department to the Army, were paralyzed by fear of his investigations. McCarthy had no grand strategy, but he wielded fear like a weapon, and in an America unsettled by global shifts, fear proved a potent political currency.The Machinery of FearMcCarthy may have provided the spark, but the firestorm of the early 1950s was fueled by forces much larger than a single senator. Fear of communism seeped into the very fabric of American institutions, political, cultural, and social, creating an environment where liberty was curtailed not by a dictator’s decree but through countless small acts of compliance, intimidation, and silence. What emerged was not an authoritarian state imposed from above but a self-reinforcing culture of suspicion, in which ordinary citizens and powerful institutions alike learned to police thought as well as behavior.One of the strongest tools was the loyalty oath. Following President Truman’s Federal Employee Loyalty Program of 1947, thousands of government workers were required to affirm that they had no ties to “subversive organizations.” The practice soon spread. State governments, universities, and even local school boards adopted their own loyalty requirements. The University of California became infamous for demanding that its faculty swear an oath renouncing communism. Professors who refused, not because they were communists, but because they objected to political tests as a matter of conscience, were dismissed. Freedom of thought itself was transformed into a liability; to question the oath was to invite suspicion.The entertainment industry became another frontline in the battle for ideological conformity. The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) staged sensational hearings into alleged communist influence in Hollywood. The result was the creation of blacklists, informa
Tesla’s second quarter of 2025 was brutal: deliveries fell 13.5% year-on-year, revenue contracted 12%, and operating margins compressed to mid-single digits. Yet, in the middle of this slump, the board is asking shareholders to approve the largest CEO pay package in corporate history—potentially worth one trillion dollars. It is a staggering juxtaposition: shrinking fundamentals on one side, an astronomical ask on the other. At such a moment, investors must ask the unvarnished question—does this serve Tesla, or does it serve Elon Musk?The Trillion Dollar AskThe board’s proposed package would hand Musk up to 12% additional equity in Tesla, contingent on crossing an Everest of targets: a market capitalization of $8.5–8.6 trillion by the mid-2030s, annual production of 20 million vehicles, deployment of fleets of autonomous robotaxis, humanoid robot commercialization, and a soaring $400 billion EBITDA.To put this in perspective, Tesla today is worth roughly $1 trillion; the board is effectively betting on an eight-fold expansion—larger than the combined current market values of Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon. The ambition borders on fantastical.Proponents defend the package as “pay for outperformance.” But the numbers tell a sobering story: Tesla’s Q2 2025 deliveries dropped 13.5% YoY, revenues contracted by 12%, and operating margins slipped from double-digit highs to the mid-single digits. This is not outperformance; it is retrenchment. Against that backdrop, the ask for a trillion-dollar package looks less like incentive alignment and more like a test of how far the cult of the visionary CEO can stretch shareholder patience.Visionary Founder CultureElon Musk is not just Tesla’s CEO; he is Silicon Valley’s most flamboyant expression of the “visionary founder” archetype. For decades, American business culture—especially in Silicon Valley—has celebrated entrepreneurs as heroic saviors. Steve Jobs was canonized as the creative genius, Jeff Bezos as the relentless optimizer, Mark Zuckerberg as the digital architect. Each cultivated the persona of the irreplaceable leader whose charisma justified extraordinary deference from boards and investors. Musk has perfected this archetype, presenting himself simultaneously as engineer, futurist, and prophet.This culture was reinforced by the venture capital system. Since the 1990s, VCs have increasingly granted founders dual-class shares and “super-voting rights”, allowing them to retain control far beyond their equity stakes. The rationale was that protecting “visionaries” from short-term shareholder pressure would unleash long-term innovation. But in practice, it entrenched founders and weakened governance. WeWork’s Adam Neumann, Uber’s Travis Kalanick, and Meta’s Zuckerberg all illustrate how unchecked founder control can corrode oversight. Musk fits neatly into this pattern—except that Tesla’s board has taken the logic to its extreme by proposing the largest compensation package in corporate history.The academic record underscores the risks. Bebchuk and Fried argue that charismatic leaders capture boards, extracting “pay without performance.” Shiller warns that visionary narratives sustain bubbles untethered to fundamentals. Khurana describes the irrational board search for “corporate saviors.”³ Hambrick and Quigley quantify the reality: CEOs, even the most influential, explain only 15–30% of firm performance variance.⁴ And Meindl famously called this the “romance of leadership,” a collective over-attribution of outcomes to the CEO.Perhaps the most telling counterexample is Apple. When Steve Jobs passed away in 2011, many predicted the company could not thrive without him. Yet under Tim Cook, Apple became the world’s most valuable company, proving that visionary founders are not irreplaceable and that strong institutions can outlast charismatic individuals. Tesla’s board, in contrast, seems to be betting the company’s fate entirely on Musk, perpetuating the myth that no one else could lead—a belief that is as dangerous for governance as it is flattering to the man himself.Tesla’s proposed trillion-dollar package is a textbook case of this romance. It is less an incentive system than a cultural artifact—proof that the mythology of the visionary founder, fortified by Silicon Valley’s governance structures, can override basic fiduciary discipline. Musk is not an outlier; he is the culmination of a system that routinely rewards charisma over accountability.Personal Financial StrainMusk’s $44 billion acquisition of Twitter—now X—was a watershed moment not only for social media but also for Musk’s personal finances. To fund the deal, he layered roughly $13 billion of debt onto X’s balance sheet, with annual interest payments estimated between $1.2 and $1.5 billion. When the financing was arranged in 2022, rates were near historic lows. By 2025, after one of the steepest Federal Reserve tightening cycles in decades, servicing that debt became structurally heavier. What once looked like manageable leverage now resembles a cash-flow vice.The pressure was not theoretical. Musk liquidated tens of billions of dollars of Tesla stock in 2022 to help fund the acquisition, breaking with his long-standing insistence that he would “never sell.” His personal wealth remains enormous on paper—north of $200 billion—but the overwhelming bulk is illiquid equity. In practice, he is far more cash-constrained than the headline numbers suggest. Tesla’s board tacitly acknowledged this by imposing a cap: Musk may borrow no more than $3.5 billion, or 25% of pledged collateral, against his shares. It was a governance safeguard, but also a signal of concern about his reliance on Tesla stock for liquidity.For nearly two years, banks were saddled with the “hung” X debt, unable to offload it to investors without taking steep losses. Only in early 2025, under improved market conditions, did they manage to sell down most of the exposure. By then, however, the financial strain had already been revealed: Musk is a CEO managing not only Tesla’s challenges but also the obligations of a leveraged, loss-making social media platform. In this light, the request for a trillion-dollar Tesla package begins to look less like long-term alignment and more like personal liquidity engineering disguised as incentive compensation.Musk’s financial commitments do not end with Tesla or X. He presides over a constellation of ventures, many of which are voracious consumers of capital. Some, like Starship at SpaceX, absorb billions each year in R&D and test launches without near-term revenue to offset the burn. Others, like Tesla’s robotaxi program and its humanoid robotics ambitions, demand sustained investment in AI, chips, and manufacturing capacity, with uncertain timelines to monetisation. His AI startup, xAI, has raised external funding but remains compute-hungry and unproven. Neuralink and The Boring Company are likewise early-stage bets whose commercial viability is still speculative.There are exceptions. Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet arm, has become a reliable cash generator, with millions of subscribers and growing defense contracts. But even here, the revenues are dwarfed by the costs of Starship development, which is meant to carry Starlink’s next-generation satellites. In other words, the positive cash flow of one project is quickly consumed by the burn rate of another.The mosaic is unmistakable: Musk leads a liquidity-hungry empire where projects cycle between visionary announcements and heavy spending, often without commensurate near-term returns. Against this backdrop, a new trillion-dollar Tesla equity package looks less like a neutral incentive design and more like a convenient mechanism to shore up the balance of a man stretched across too many fronts.Tesla’s 2008 Near CollapseThe mythology of Elon Musk as the indomitable risk-taker has its roots in 2008, a year he has often called the worst of his life. Both Tesla and SpaceX were running out of cash. Tesla’s early Roadster program was plagued by delays and cost overruns; SpaceX had suffered three failed rocket launches in a row. Musk had already poured in much of his personal fortune from the PayPal sale. By December, he was down to his last reserves.In a now-famous episode, Musk wired his final $20 million into Tesla just days before Christmas, uncertain whether he would make payroll. On Christmas Eve, SpaceX finally achieved a successful launch, unlocking a crucial NASA contract. Simultaneously, Tesla secured a last-minute round of financing. For a brief moment, both companies avoided bankruptcy by the narrowest of margins.The story is often retold as proof of Musk’s courage and resilience. Yet it also illustrates the other side of his leadership: a willingness to steer companies to the very edge of insolvency, gambling that last-minute salvation will arrive. It is this history that investors should keep in mind when assessing today’s trillion-dollar package request. For Musk, financial brinkmanship is not an exception but part of the operating model.Governmental ScaffoldingThe narrative of Elon Musk as a purely market-driven entrepreneur overlooks a crucial fact: Tesla’s ascent has been built on an intricate lattice of government support. In 2010, the company received a $465 million loan from the Department of Energy’s ATVM program. Musk often emphasizes that Tesla repaid the loan early, but what mattered most was timing: the loan arrived when private capital was scarce, and Tesla’s future was still highly uncertain. Without it, the company might never have reached scale.Beyond loans, Tesla’s profitability for much of the 2010s was sustained by regulatory credits—emissions allowances that Tesla sold to competitors, generating billions in revenue. These credits, effectively a policy subsidy, often made the difference between red ink and black ink. Similarly, state-level incentives played a pivotal role. Nevada’s $1.3 billion package of tax abatements an
What if I told you that Southeast Asia — one of the fastest-growing regions in the world — rests on fragile arches without keystones?Indonesia, the demographic engine. Thailand, the geographic pivot. Two nations that hold up ASEAN. But here’s the paradox: their democracies look complete — parliaments, elections, constitutions — and yet legitimacy is unfinished. Power is split between the people’s vote and unelected guardians.That’s why something as small as a housing allowance in Jakarta or a leaked phone call in Bangkok can trigger national crises. The system is fragile because the keystone is missing.In my latest report, Southeast Asia’s Fault Lines: The Crisis of Incomplete Transformation, I investigate why this matters not just for these countries, but for the stability of the entire region. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe
There are concepts that, while seemingly abstract, possess a profound and often insidious power to shape our lives, our societies, and the very future of human liberty: Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, and Extremism. These are not mere political labels; they are pathologies of power, each representing a regression from the nuanced, individual-centric flourishing that defines true civilization.Let us begin with Extremism. What is it, at its core? It is, as I see it, the inability to tolerate difference. It is the fervent, often zealous, conviction that there is but one voice, one truth, one correct path to be permitted, and all others must be silenced or eradicated. Consider the passionate advocate, utterly convinced of their singular truth. While passion can fuel progress, when it metastasizes into the belief that their truth is the only truth, and that all deviation is heresy, then we witness the birth of extremism.I am a skeptic. I believe truth exists, but it does not reside solely within the domain of secular human beings, nor can any single individual or group claim its exclusive dominion. A philosophical inquiry into epistemology reveals a myriad of pathways to understanding. To assume one's own beliefs are universally and perpetually true is a dangerous hubris. Extremism, in this light, is the most perilous form of collectivism, It is a mindset that cannot abide the tiniest divergence, seeking either to coerce assimilation or to utterly annihilate dissent.From extremism, we turn to authoritarianism and totalitarianism, systems that embody this collective impulse at the governmental level.Totalitarianism, in its most chilling form, seeks total control. It is a system of governance that infiltrates every conceivable aspect of human existence – what we wear, what we do, what we see, what we hear. It is not merely a restriction of freedom, but an absolute subjugation of the individual to the state, a relentless flattening of human experience into a singular, state-sanctioned mold. Every private corner of life, every personal choice, becomes a matter of public decree, enforced by the pervasive hand of the ruling power.Authoritarianism, while perhaps less all-encompassing, is no less dangerous in its implications. It usurps the domain of right versus wrong, wresting it from the individual and placing it in the hands of those in positions of power. Herein lies a critical distinction: the difference between truth and falsehood, and right and wrong. My preference for a certain food, your aesthetic choice – these are matters of individual taste, not universal judgment. Yet, under an authoritarian regime, such personal preferences can be elevated to matters of "right" or "wrong," stripping away individual autonomy and fostering a culture of compliance.The slippery slope here is terrifyingly steep. When matters of personal choice become matters of right and wrong, they can then be transmuted into matters of truth itself. Those holding differing beliefs, those practicing alternative ways of life, are then deemed "untrue," "unhuman." This dehumanization is the fertile ground from which the most horrific atrocities spring, fundamentally altering how we perceive and treat our fellow human beings.The mechanics of control, particularly in politics, are deceptively simple: how a small cohort can manipulate a vast populace into compliance, even into serving their narrow interests. Often, it's not brute force alone. It is the cultivation of fear, the narrative that the "weak" must seek protection from a "strongman" or an omnipotent state. Yet, the stark reality is often the inverse: the collective, driven by fear and dependency, becomes the unwitting bulwark for the very "strongmen" who exploit their anxieties.Consider the role of Ideology and Identity. These are intimately intertwined. What we believe often defines who we are. Contemporary politics is rife with "identity politics," just as the 19th century saw "class struggle." These are attempts to categorize, to group individuals based on shared characteristics or economic status, and then, crucially, to antagonize these groups against one another. It becomes a simplistic "we versus them" narrative, obliterating the rich tapestry of individual identity.But each of us is more than a member of a single group. We are, at once, independent individuals and members of myriad associations: family, profession, hobbies, language, shared geography. The critical question for a free society is where we draw the boundary between our individuality and the rest of the world. It is not an antagonistic relationship; it is not "I against the world." Rather, it is "I, existing as a complete individual, also belonging to diverse groups that may cooperate or conflict." The danger arises when totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, and extremist organizations, forbid this multiplicity of identity, seeking to flatten complexity into a simple, fanatical "we versus them."So, how do we safeguard against such insidious forces? The answer lies not merely in the ritual of elections, though they serve the vital purpose of ensuring no one clings to power indefinitely. Democracy is far more profound than mere electoral politics. It is, first and foremost, about the respect for differences. We must accept that in a free and open society, disagreement is not merely inevitable, but essential. The challenge lies in where we draw the boundaries of this disagreement. If a matter does not involve us, if it does not infringe upon our fundamental rights, it is simply not our business to dictate the choices of others. This is the essence of subsidiarity: that power and decision-making should reside at the level closest to the individual, wherever possible and necessary.Beyond elections and subsidiarity, the true bastions of a democratic society are:Firstly, free speech absolutism. There will always be speech we deem hateful or foolish. But once we open the Pandora's Box of censorship, we embark upon a perilous slippery slope, where more and more ideas become forbidden, and the very marketplace of thought is choked. We must tolerate speech we disagree with, for the alternative is intellectual tyranny.Secondly, the free market. Believe it or not, the financial market, in all its chaotic glory, is often the most potent check on governmental overreach. Governments, particularly modern ones, are deeply dependent on financial markets for public financing. Without this lifeblood, ruling coalitions falter, and even the most tyrannical aspirations cannot be sustained. A free market, therefore, is not merely a means to accumulate wealth, but a crucial bulwark against unchecked state power.Thirdly, and intrinsically linked, is an independent judiciary. A functioning free market, built on competition and cooperation, demands an impartial arbiter of disputes, particularly commercial ones. A judiciary free from political interference is the very avatar of fairness and predictability, allowing the complex dance of commerce and innovation to flourish.Finally, and perhaps most profoundly, lies the cultivation of civil society. This is not a government program or a political party; it is a state of mind. It is when individuals, unbidden and uncoerced, ask themselves: "What can I do? What can we, voluntarily, do to make the world a better place?" It is a psychological state of self-belief, a rejection of the culture of dependency that leads societies to become subservient to the state. We must believe in ourselves, in our neighbors, and in the power of voluntary action to mend, to build, and to uplift.Young people today face immense anxieties, particularly in a world transformed by economic and technological shifts that displace traditional certainties. But the government is not a savior; it can, indeed, be the very source of the problem. Fear, whether among the young or reflected in the media, can easily drive us into the arms of "strongmen" – figures who are not truly strong, but rather exploit our anxieties to fortify their own regimes.True civilization is built on individuals who believe in themselves, who resist the psychological urge to surrender their autonomy to external powers. It is a continuous act of self-reliance, of voluntary engagement, and of a steadfast commitment to the values of liberty, skepticism, and the tolerance of difference. Let us embrace these principles, for they are our most powerful defenses against the encroaching shadows of totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and extremism. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe
It has been some time since the last update.The seismic shifts following the events of early 2020 have left many feeling adrift. Subsequently, the trade war destabilized markets. The push for deglobalization is a worrying retreat from the principles of comparative advantage and global cooperation that have historically driven prosperity.Yet, from a historical and free-market perspective, perhaps we should have anticipated some of this.Social discontent is perennial. The siren call to employ governmental coercion never truly fades. These impulses intensify during periods of rapid technological and societal change, as anxieties about individual circumstances rise. The working class often blames globalization for job losses, failing to recognize that these very forces of free trade have expanded access to a higher standard of living. Similarly, the fear of technological unemployment, while understandable, overlooks the creation of new opportunities. This climate of uncertainty bears a striking resemblance to the populist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, where similar anxieties fueled demands for protectionist policies and increased state control, at the expense of peace and liberty.The transition from the fractured and belligerent nationalism of the early 20th century to the rules-based system of the post-World War II era resulted from deliberate efforts to build international institutions – such as the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, and later the World Trade Organization. In many ways, the past seventy-odd years have represented a triumph of core liberal ideals on a global scale: the emphasis on free trade, peaceful resolution of disputes, and the rule of law instead of the law of the jungle.In the optimistic aftermath of the Cold War during the 1990s, a sense of finality, an "end of history," permeated intellectual discourse, with the triumph of liberal democracy seemingly assured. Nevertheless, this perspective significantly downplayed the enduring and often insurmountable role of geopolitics in shaping the destinies of nations. The underlying dynamics of power, competition, and national interest were never fully extinguished by ideological victory alone.Rules-based systems, for all their merits, remain inherently fragile. Their efficacy hinges on the adherence of even the most powerful nations to the core tenets of classical liberalism, particularly the safeguarding of individual liberty. When these foundational principles are compromised by leading states – as witnessed, for example, when the American government itself infringes upon personal freedoms – the very legitimacy and stability of the international order are undermined.The aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks marked a significant turning point. The perceived exigencies of national security led the United States to increasingly curtail personal liberties in ways that would have been unthinkable just a decade prior. Surveillance programs expanded, due process was questioned, and the very definition of individual freedom seemed to contract under the weight of fear.The Global Financial Crisis of 2008 further eroded faith in the principles of free markets and limited government intervention. Government bailouts across the developed world signaled a decisive shift towards greater state involvement in the economy. This interventionist turn further weakened the ideological consistency of the prevailing international order.This weakening of the ideological foundations of the liberal international order created a vacuum, which China, with its rapidly growing economic and geopolitical influence, has been increasingly eager to fill.Rather than adhering to the set of broadly free-market economic policies championed by the USA and international financial institutions for decades (often termed the "Washington Consensus"), China has promoted an alternative vision often termed the "Beijing Consensus." The Beijing Consensus, while not always explicitly defined, generally emphasizes state-led economic development, authoritarian political control, and a focus on national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations. China’s growing economic power, fueled by its blend of state capitalism and export-oriented growth, has allowed it to project its influence and forge partnerships with nations.As an authoritarian regime, the Chinese Communist Party’s motivations extend beyond mere economic development; a significant geopolitical agenda is at play. The Belt and Road Initiative, in part, aims to cultivate a bloc of nations that are more aligned with China’s authoritarian model of governance, fostering a geopolitical sphere of influence composed of similarly structured regimes.From this perspective, the optimism surrounding the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, with its perceived triumph of liberalism, may have been premature. While the Soviet Union collapsed, the underlying currents of geopolitical tension never truly vanished. As great power competition intensifies and different ideological blocs solidify, nations may increasingly turn inward, emphasizing national identity and security in response to perceived external pressures and the shifting balance of power.The COVID-19 crisis, erupting in early 2020, served as another powerful accelerant to the trends we've been discussing. The pandemic and the subsequent global response further fueled discontent amongst populations worldwide and significantly eroded trust in established institutions, both domestic and international. When people feel that traditional authorities – whether political, scientific, or economic – have failed them, they become more susceptible to simplistic narratives and charismatic leaders promising radical change.This erosion of trust in institutions created a fertile ground for populist sentiments to take root and flourish. As Eric Hoffer observed in The True Believer, "Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil." Subsequent waves of crises since the 9/11 terrorist attacks have generated widespread anxiety and a sense of societal breakdown, inadvertently creating fertile ground for the identification of such "devils." Whether it was a virus, specific social groups, or perceived institutional failures, these crises provided readily available targets for blame and fueled the kind of collective animosity that often underpins populist movements.Another, perhaps less conventionally discussed, episode during the COVID-19 crisis that illuminated the rising tide of populist sentiment and the erosion of trust in established financial institutions was the meme-stock frenzy, exemplified by the dramatic GameStop saga. Fueled by hype and a populist call to arms orchestrated by Reddit users on platforms like r/WallStreetBets, this movement saw a surge of individual investors banding together to challenge institutional investors – specifically hedge funds that had bet against these companies.The narrative that emerged was one of a David-versus-Goliath battle: ordinary retail investors uniting to defeat the perceived "corrupt elite" of Wall Street. This resonated deeply with a population already feeling disenfranchised and distrustful of traditional financial systems in the wake of the 2008 crisis and the economic uncertainties of the pandemic. The call to "arm" oneself with stock purchases to inflict financial pain on institutional investors became a form of populist rebellion, a way for the "common person" to strike back against a system they felt was rigged against them.As we consider the trajectory of these populist movements, Eric Hoffer's framework in The True Believer offers further insight: "A movement is pioneered by men of words, materialized by fanatics and consolidated by men of action." The intense fervor of populist movements, often driven by rhetoric, will eventually subside as the limitations of simplistic solutions become apparent and the "men of words" exhaust themselves.However, this does not mean the end to societal discontent. Just as one wave recedes, another is brewing. History rarely progresses in a straight line. It is a tapestry woven with conflicting views and values, marked by periods of both advancement and regression. New forms and flavors of populism, fueled by different grievances, will emerge. It is not the absence of conflict, nor the guarantee of immediate consensus, that defines a resilient society. But rather its ability for diverse perspectives to contend, to be scrutinized, and to evolve through free exchange remains the most reliable compass. As old certainties crumble and new anxieties emerge, the seeds of progress, however unconventional or challenging in their inception, will take root and shape the world to come, emerging from the cacophony of competing voices. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe
As a free marketeer, I typically do not publicly support candidates for political office. The following interview with the leader of the People's Party of Canada, Maxime Bernier, was recorded in March. I also want to be transparent and disclose that my friend Mimi Lee is running for the Markham-Thornhill seat in Ontario, and Mr. Bernier and I also have mutual friends within libertarian and classical liberal circles. Despite these connections, the focus of this interview remains on exploring current Canadian economic and social issues from a non-mainstream liberal perspective.* Productivity and Economic Growth:* Bernier argues Canada's productivity has significantly slowed due to excessive government regulation, high taxes, and business subsidies.* He proposes deregulation, lower business taxes (a 15% flat tax), eliminating capital gains tax, and ending business subsidies to stimulate investment and productivity.* He also argues that mass immigration has lowered GDP per capita, creating an illusion of growth while making individuals poorer.* He suggests a pause on immigration to force businesses to reinvest in automation, and therefore increase productivity.1* Government Spending and Deficit:* Bernier criticizes the combined federal, provincial, and municipal deficits, advocating for a balanced budget within a year.* He proposes cutting foreign aid and withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and UN migration compact.2* Trade and International Relations:* He advocates for free trade, including eliminating interprovincial trade barriers and renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement to include the removal of supply management cartels in dairy, poultry, and eggs.* He supports an open, not isolationist, Canada.* He expresses concern about Chinese and Indian interference in Canadian politics and advocates for stricter controls on foreign investment, particularly from China, in natural resources.* Immigration:* Bernier proposes a temporary pause on immigration to address housing and healthcare crises.3* He advocates for a streamlined immigration process with face-to-face interviews and a focus on immigrants who share Western civilization values.* He is against the current system where people use student visas or temporary work permits as back door ways to become permanent residents.* People's Party of Canada:* Bernier describes the party as a populist, free-market party aiming to increase its vote share.* He emphasizes the party's commitment to individual freedom, personal responsibility, respect, and fairness.* He claims that he is principled, and that his party does not focus on polls.4 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe
A few days ago, I attended an event where someone asked, "Why doesn’t the CCP just ‘take care’ of Jimmy Lai? Wouldn't that be the simplest solution?"It was the launch of Mark Clifford’s new book, The Troublemaker. I was there as an audience to show support. During the discussion, the topic of how authoritarian regimes deal with dissidents came up. Everyone understood the implications of "take care" in this context.After the book launch, I stayed behind with a few acquaintances to discuss the issue further. My take is this: "A living, breathing Jimmy Lai is far more useful to the CCP."Why is that?The CCP's goal is to destroy the symbol of Jimmy Lai. What does Jimmy Lai represent? He embodies a certain kind of Hongkonger — someone who fled Communist China’s oppression, found freedom and opportunity in Hong Kong, and ultimately dedicated himself to defending the city’s freedom and universal values. Back in the 1950s and 60s, there were many people like him in Hong Kong — people who chose to become Hongkongers. Life in Hong Kong wasn’t easy back then, but after decades of hard work, the city became the place we all grew to know and love.If the CCP were to act "without thinking" and permanently eliminate Jimmy Lai, the only message they'd be sending to the world is: "So what?" But the bigger problem for them is that such an act would immortalize him. He would be elevated from a mortal being to a spiritual figure — a "Hong Kong version of Martin Luther King" — remembered and revered for generations.Sure, some might argue that in a decade or so, people will forget who Jimmy was. But in today’s world, thanks to the information revolution, the half-life of collective memory has grown much longer. People live longer too, and many are dedicated to preserving these histories. It’s been five years since 2019, and yet, many of the events of that year remain vivid in people's memories. Ten, twenty, or even fifty years from now, Hong Kong’s history will still not be forgotten.That’s why the CCP’s strategy is not to simply erase people. CCP wants to rewrite history. And to rewrite history, you must first change the people within it. That means forcing them to publicly confess, discrediting them, and obliterating their dignity and reputation. Once that’s achieved, these people lose all symbolic value. By then, whether or not they remain alive becomes irrelevant.That’s why, in the Apple Daily case, the authorities pressured other employees to become witnesses against Jimmy Lai. The goal was to make it appear as though even his own people had betrayed him.The CCP's ultimate goal is for Jimmy Lai to surrender and confess. But they have gravely underestimated him.Frankly, I understand why our former colleagues might seek leniency through compromise. But they’re being naive. After they testify, they will have exhausted their usefulness to the CCP. They will have no bargaining power left.I even suspect that because Jimmy Lai remains resilient, he is inadvertently protecting his former colleagues. The CCP might still see value in using them to push the narrative further — telling even more outlandish lies — just to reinforce the image of Jimmy Lai as a villain. In doing so, these witnesses maintain some utility to the regime.From a game theory perspective, Jimmy’s best option is to stand firm. It’s not just a moral decision or an act of self-loyalty — it’s also the optimal choice for everyone involved.Meanwhile, the CCP will continue to use every tactic they can think of to crush Jimmy Lai as a person and reshape the world's perception of him.In chess, this scenario is known as a stalemate. When your opponent assumes you’ve already lost, but you deny them the ability to win, you create a stalemate.I’m sharing this idea because I believe CCP needs to recognize this for what it is: a stalemate. Only then will there be a chance for it to end.At Mark Clifford’s book launch, he made a remark that resonated deeply with me. He said he hadn’t had the chance to see Jimmy Lai in the past four years. Yet, from his court appearances, it’s clear that his years of ascetic living had only made him stronger and more faithful to himself.Jimmy’s religious faith has given him wisdom. He was baptized after the 1997 handover, as he felt that one day he would need the support of faith to endure what was to come.For the record, I am not a Christian. Nor am I an atheist. I identify as an agnostic. I believe that humanity will never be able to definitively prove or disprove the existence of God. From a philosophical and logical standpoint, such questions are inherently unanswerable.But I do understand the power of beliefs — whether it’s religious faith or secular belief. Faith has meaning for individuals and society alike. Our personal sense of morality is often rooted in these beliefs. Some people claim to believe in "nothing," but in truth, they simply aren’t aware of what they believe in.There are several verses from the Bible that, despite my secular disposition, I find profoundly powerful:"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." (Luke 23:34)"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." (Luke 6:37)These words probably come to Jimmy’s mind when he thinks of our former colleagues who testified against him. Of course, he must challenge their lies directly, but he can still focus his response on the claims rather than the people.The judges and prosecutors are both attempting to prove that Jimmy "incited hatred." Jimmy’s response, however, is to speak about his belief in freedom and his love for Hong Kong.Everything he does is born from faith and gratitude. There is no hatred in him — not for the regime, not for the judges, and not for his former colleagues who testified falsely against him.I also want to clarify something: Jimmy Lai never once asked that anyone "resist to the end." I, for one, am an example of someone who walked away, and he never blamed me for it.I remember the first time I resigned in 2010 to move back to the U.S. Back then, Hong Kong was still relatively safe. He told me, "Simon, your future is in Hong Kong. It would be a wrong move for you to leave."But when I left for good in 2020, he fully supported my decision. He didn’t tell me what to do or how to live my life."I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear Him." (Luke 12:4-5)For those with religious faith, especially Christians, this passage has deeper meaning — such as who truly holds "authority" and what "hell" represents. But as an ordinary layperson, I don’t know what happens after we die. I don’t know if there’s a soul or what form it might take. I can only interpret the passage at face value. To me, the message is this: Ideas are bulletproof. Beliefs cannot be destroyed by bullets. If you betray your beliefs, you surrender even the few inches of freedom that exist between your two ears.Allow me to conclude with the words of another "worldly" philosopher, Marcus Aurelius:"The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury."Today is Jimmy’s birthday, and here’s my message for him:Dear Jimmy, I wish you peace. We will meet again — not in heaven, but in the U.K. or the U.S. When that day comes, we’ll go out for a good meal together.The Troublemaker: How Jimmy Lai Became a Billionaire, Hong Kong's Greatest Dissident, and China's Most Feared CriticAlternatively, here’s the link to kindle version of the book and the audio book. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe
For those familiar with the 2019 resistance movement in Hong Kong, images of mass protest and calls for freedom remain vivid. What is less known is the aftermath, the events that unfolded once the global spotlight faded. Among these developments, the trial of Apple Daily and its founder, Jimmy Lai, stands as a stark example of the changing political and legal landscape in Hong Kong.Since its founding in 1995, Apple Daily was celebrated for its fearless journalism and outspoken pro-freedom stance. The newspaper played a pivotal role during the 2019 protests, becoming a symbol of free speech. However, in 2021, the paper ceased operations after its assets were frozen under the National Security Law. Jimmy Lai, a prominent businessman-turned-activist, is now on trial, accused of using Apple Daily as a platform to undermine national security. The trial, which has been ongoing for nearly a year, has reached its 96th day.Overview of the CaseThe prosecution's case hinges on five key allegations, each focusing on Lai's role as the founder of Apple Daily and his political activities.One. Lai’s Role in Apple DailyThe prosecution argues that Lai held ultimate control over the newspaper’s editorial direction, using it to further his pro-democracy agenda. Witnesses described the so-called "lunchbox meetings," where Lai allegedly provided direct instructions to senior editors.A former executive characterized these meetings:"Lai would set the tone for the week’s reporting, often focusing on maximizing coverage of key protests or international events. He was strong-willed, and his instructions were seen as final."While some senior editorial staff testified that they had some autonomy, they also noted this autonomy was constrained within what they described as a "caged autonomy," with Lai as the ultimate decision-maker.Two. Content of Apple DailyThe prosecution scrutinized Apple Daily’s editorial policies, particularly its English-language edition launched in 2020, alleging it was crafted to influence U.S. policymakers and stoke anti-China sentiment.Former editor-in-chief of Apple Daily English News, Lo Fung, testified that Lai instructed the editorial team:"Focus only on China’s negative stories. We’re not here to balance the narrative—we’re here to tell the world what they don’t want you to know."Prosecutors presented this as evidence that Apple Daily functioned as a propaganda tool rather than a journalistic outlet.Three. "One Person, One Letter, Save Hong Kong" CampaignThe "One Person, One Letter, Save Hong Kong" campaign, initiated by Apple Daily, was presented as evidence of collusion with foreign forces. The campaign encouraged readers to write to then-U.S. President Donald Trump, urging intervention against the National Security Law's implementation.Four. Connections with International FiguresLai’s online interview program featuring foreign commentators was another focal point. The prosecution argued that Lai used this platform to discuss sensitive political topics and potentially solicit foreign intervention.The prosecution also highlighted Lai's meetings with U.S. officials, including former Vice President Mike Pence and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as part of his alleged efforts to seek international support for sanctions against China.Five. Financial Support for ActivismLai’s alleged financial backing of pro-democracy groups like Stand with Hong Kong (SWHK) was scrutinized. SWHK played a key role in global advocacy for the movement, including lobbying for sanctions against Chinese officials.A former activist testified:"Lai’s companies provided crucial support for our ad campaigns. Without that funding, we couldn’t have achieved the global impact we did."The prosecution contends this financial support constitutes collusion with foreign forces, a core charge under the National Security Law.Jimmy Lai’s TestimonyDay 93Day 93 marked the beginning of Lai's testimony in his own defense. The session focused heavily on Lai's background, the core values and editorial processes of Apple Daily, and his relationships with various individuals, including foreign politicians and dignitaries.Lai explained his decision to transition from a successful career in fashion with Giordano to the media industry stemmed from the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. He stated that, as a businessman who had achieved some financial success, he saw starting a newspaper as a way to promote freedom. He believed access to information was key to achieving greater freedom, stating:"The more information you have, the more you are in the know, the freer you are."Lai described the core values of Apple Daily as reflecting those of the Hong Kong people, particularly those who valued democracy and freedom. He stated that these values included the rule of law, democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and opposition to violence and opposition to Hong Kong independence. Lai stated he believed these values stemmed from Hong Kong's history under British governance.Lai emphasized his opposition to Hong Kong independence, calling it a "conspiracy" designed to entrap people. He stated he considered the idea "too crazy" to even consider and forbade his staff from mentioning it in the newspaper. He said: "The advocacy of independence of Hong Kong is a conspiracy because people just want us to get us into the trap. That was never a reality. That was too crazy to think about this, that’s why I never allow any of our staff or the newspaper to mention about this."Responding to accusations of "poisoning" readers, Lai said, "I don’t think I have ability to pollute or corrupt the mind of the Hong Kong people just by my writing."Lai acknowledged donating to think tanks in the US but denied that these donations were intended to influence US policy towards China. He asserted that his donations were relatively small compared to others and made without any expectation of a return. He stated, "If I ask for something in return that will be too presumptuous... I think this is crazy."Day 94Day 94 of the trial continued Lai's testimony under examination by his defense counsel. The focus of the day's proceedings shifted from Lai's personal background and political beliefs to his role in Apple Daily's editorial processes and his relationships with key staff members.In response to the defense's reference to his May 29, 2020, article published in New York Times, titled "Do My Tweets Really Threaten China’s National Security?" Lai elaborated on his grave concerns regarding the National Security Law. He explained that the provisions were sweeping and ambiguously worded, granting authorities significant leeway for arbitrary interpretation. This ambiguity, he noted, created a chilling effect, suppressing free speech and enabling the prosecution of individuals for dissenting views. he emphasized that the law’s vague language would severely restrict freedom of expression, leading to widespread self-censorship and eroding Hong Kong's tradition of robust civil liberties.As a leading pro-democracy publication, Apple Daily was particularly susceptible to the law's expansive reach. Lai expressed his fear that the NSL could be weaponized to silence the newspaper, either through direct legal action or by intimidating its staff and contributors. These concerns, he argued, underscored the existential threat the NSL posed to Apple Daily and Hong Kong's free press.The defense team highlighted testimony from former Apple Daily CEO Cheung Kim-Hung, who alleged that Lai had instructed him to continue operating the newspaper as usual while Lai was in custody. Lai vehemently denied this accusation, asserting that issuing such instructions under the constraints of the National Security Law would have been both irresponsible and reckless. To support his position, Lai pointed to a letter he had written to the newspaper's staff, emphasizing caution and prioritizing their safety. He argued that this letter was consistent with his stance and demonstrated that he would not have encouraged actions that could endanger his colleagues.The defense then referenced communications between Lai and Apple Daily’s former Deputy Publisher Chan Pui-man, highlighting Lai’s practice of forwarding articles and suggestions for editorial consideration. Lai testified that he forwarded an article written by Benedict Rogers, the head of Hong Kong Watch, to Chan, leaving it to her discretion to determine its relevance. Lai stated that he often shared articles from others if he believed they might be useful but stressed that the ultimate decision always rested with the editorial staff.The defense also cited messages exchanged between Lai and Chan regarding the July 1 Legislative Council incident. Lai expressed his concern over the impact of the storming of the Legislative Council Complex by young protesters, stating, "The young people storming Legislative Council weighed heavily on my heart. What do you think the pro-democracy camp can do afterward to ensure the movement continues? Fortunately, the public seems to have some sympathy for the young people breaking into Legislative Council Complex, so the damage might not be too severe. What do you think?"In court, Lai clarified that his comments were not editorial directives but suggestions. He explained that he was worried the incident might harm the broader movement and wanted to highlight the perspectives of young protesters to garner public understanding and sympathy. Lai reiterated that his intention was to focus on reporting the thoughts and motivations of the youth, rather than issuing any orders about how the story should be covered. "Some people may subjectively interpret this as an instruction, but I emphasize that it was merely a suggestion," said Lai.He also emphasized that, while he did not consider the Legislative Council Complex storming an act of severe violence, citing the absence of injuries, the incident still involved vandalism and illegal actions, whi
Yes, you heard me. There are people in the United States and Canada who support Trump’s plan to impose tariffs on Canadian exports to the U.S. I’m not surprised, though I can hardly see how imposing tariffs on all imports could magically make Fentanyl disappear from our streets.As a father of a high school teenager, I often receive emails from the principal about student tragedies, including overdoses. These stories hit close to home and serve as grim reminders of the Fentanyl crisis affecting so many communities. So, when Trump links tariffs to the Fentanyl crisis, I understand why some people see his proposal as a solution. Some argue that Canada’s leniency on crime justifies the U.S. using tariffs as leverage to force Canada to act.But let’s pause for a moment. Canada is grappling with its own Fentanyl crisis. In fact, recent reports reveal that Canadian-made Fentanyl is being exported. If the Canadian government had the ability to fully address the issue, wouldn’t they have acted by now?The frustration among conservative voters in both the U.S. and Canada is understandable. Issues like inner-city crime, substance abuse, and the troubling state of mental health are very real concerns. But when it comes to drug use, the solution isn’t as simple as targeting supply. Substance abuse also has a demand side.Why are so many people—especially young people—turning to drugs in the first place? Why is despair so pervasive in societies like ours, where opportunities and resources should abound? Sociological research identifies family dysfunction, peer pressure, and academic stress as primary drivers of drug use. Psychological studies show that a belief in a positive future can deter substance abuse, while hopelessness often pushes people toward drugs as a coping mechanism. Stress and despair are potent triggers, and they’re far more widespread than we might want to admit.Tariffs on Canadian exports won’t fix the Fentanyl crisis any more than waving a wand will solve all our social ills. Instead of looking for shortcuts, we need to ask deeper questions: What kind of society are we building? How can we offer young people a sense of purpose and hope? Governments cannot solve the root causes of drug use—despair, stress, and alienation—by focusing solely on supply-side measures.I empathize with those who feel strongly about combating drug use—it’s a destructive force. But who’s to blame for the underlying problems? Progressives blame conservatives, conservatives blame progressives, and the cycle continues.Ultimately, individuals make their own choices, and those choices have consequences. While I support harm reduction and legalization as pragmatic approaches, I recognize that no government policy can stop someone determined to engage in self-destructive behavior.In fact, enforcement policies that focus exclusively on supply often backfire. By ignoring demand, they inadvertently hand criminal cartels a lucrative monopoly.The demand side of the problem is harder to address, and that’s precisely why many politicians avoid it. Voters often prefer quick fixes, and tariffs might seem like one. But simple answers rarely solve complex problems. There is no magic wand for societal issues—not for substance abuse, not for despair, and certainly not for the broader challenges we face. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe
"What exactly is populism?” A listener asked me this after my recent Cantonese podcast. It's such a simple question, but it really made me think. We throw this word around all the time, don't we? Populism this, populism that. But what does it actually mean?I started looking into it, and here's what struck me: almost everyone uses 'populism' as a label to attack their opponents. If you're on the left, you call the right populist. If you're on the right, you point to left-wing populism. It's become just another political weapon. But here's the thing - populism isn't limited to any one side. It's everywhere in politics today.So what is it really? Here's what I've come to understand: populism is when we focus on leaders instead of the quality of the solutions. It's when we believe that if we just find the right hero, all our problems will magically disappear. Think about it - we love hero stories, don't we? Hollywood makes billions selling us tales of heroes saving the day. And every four years, our political system tries to sell us the same story - just elect this hero, and everything will be fine.But here's the catch - every hero needs a villain. As writer Eric Hoffer once said, you don't need people to believe in a god to start a movement, but you absolutely need them to believe in a devil. Without someone to blame, who needs a hero?And this is where things get really interesting. These political 'heroes' love to talk about 'power to the people.' But what are they actually doing? They're taking advantage of people who feel powerless and scared about all the changes happening in our world.Let me give you an example: immigration. It's an easy target, right? Got problems with crime? Blame immigrants. Economy not doing well? Must be the immigrants. It's a simple story that makes people feel better. But let me share something I've seen firsthand.After the Communist Party took over China, millions of people fled to Hong Kong. Now, what did Hong Kong do? The British colonial government let them stay. Not because they were being nice - they did it because Hong Kong's factories needed workers. And you know what happened? When everyone could find work, nobody complained about refugees stealing jobs or causing crime. Actually, these immigrants helped make Hong Kong's economy boom.Here's the really fascinating part: when did people stop coming illegally to Hong Kong? After China started its economic reforms in the 1980s. When people could make a decent living at home, they stayed home. Simple as that.Now, I know what you're thinking - the U.S. and Europe can't control what other governments do. True. But this tells us something important about how to actually solve problems. Instead of just building walls and making threats, maybe we should be thinking about why people leave their homes in the first place. My friends working in different free market think tanks are trying to propose solutions. We need more people like them working on the solutions, not looking for people to blame. We hear a lot of talk about an 'invasion' of immigrants these days. But let's think about this: when people can't feed their families, they'll do whatever it takes to find opportunities. The next administration says they'll kick out all illegal immigrants. Sounds tough, right? But here's the reality - it'll cost a fortune, and it won't work. Worse, it'll just push people into the shadows where criminals can exploit them.We see the same pattern with the economy. Things getting expensive? Must be those greedy businesses or foreign countries! Just let the government control everything and prices will magically go down. Except that's not how the real world works, is it?Here's what bothers me most about populism. While these leaders claim they've the solutions, they're actually doing the opposite. Real solutions don't come from some hero on a white horse. They come from millions of people making their own choices, working together, trading freely, solving problems in ways no central planner could ever imagine.I know this isn't a popular message right now. Everyone wants simple answers. Everyone wants someone to blame. But sometimes speaking freely means saying things people don't want to hear. Yes, we have real problems. But we won't solve them by giving up our power to think for ourselves.So next time someone offers you a simple solution or tells you exactly who to blame for all your problems, remember this: true power doesn't come from leaders who claim to speak for 'the people.' It comes from people like you and me, making our own choices, working together freely, finding real solutions to real problems.That's not just democracy - that's freedom. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe
This year, 64 countries, representing 2 billion voters, held national elections—a density of political activity unparalleled in history. As we reflect on these global political shifts, one trend is particularly striking: the widespread struggles of incumbent governments. Across various regions, ruling parties faced significant setbacks. In the United States, the Democratic Party not only lost the presidency but also ceded control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives to the Republican Party. Similarly, the United Kingdom saw the Conservative Party ousted by Labour, which returned to power after a 15-year hiatus. France’s Renaissance Party, led by President Emmanuel Macron, suffered a major blow, losing dozens of parliamentary seats. Though Macron’s presidency continues, his weakened position requires him to form coalitions to govern effectively, illustrating the vulnerability of even strong leaders in fragmented political landscapes. Elsewhere in Europe—Portugal, Lithuania, Austria—the trend persisted, with incumbent parties losing their dominance or being forced into coalition governments. In Asia, Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) lost its parliamentary majority, while its traditional ally, Komeito, also faced electoral losses. South Korea experienced similar instability. Even in India, a country where Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have maintained strong influence for years, the BJP managed only 240 out of 543 parliamentary seats in this year’s elections, falling short of a majority. Africa was not immune to this wave. South Africa’s African National Congress (ANC), long the dominant force, was compelled to form its first-ever coalition government. To understand why so many incumbents are losing ground, we must consider two key questions: 1. What factors are contributing to this global trend? 2. Is this a temporary cycle or a structural shift? The economy is a significant common denominator. Since 2022, high inflation has plagued countries worldwide, eroding public trust in governments. While inflation is difficult for any administration to control, the perception of economic mismanagement often leads to electoral backlash. Looking back at the pandemic, governments across the globe significantly increased public spending to mitigate its impact. While GDP figures may not have reflected drastic declines during the pandemic, much of this "growth" was driven by government expenditure rather than private-sector productivity. This overreliance on public spending has created long-term inflationary pressures. In addition, the war in Ukraine disrupted global economies, hitting Europe particularly hard. Energy crises, rising costs, and economic stagnation have intensified dissatisfaction with incumbent parties. Beyond economic cycles, we may be witnessing a deeper structural shift. Modern societies are increasingly shaped by information technology, social media, and the decentralization of traditional media. Platforms like Twitter and YouTube have amplified the voices of influencers and KOLs (key opinion leaders), reshaping public opinion and political engagement.Interestingly, even the ultra-wealthy, such as Elon Musk and Ray Dalio, are heavily investing in building their social media presence. The convergence of wealth, influence, and power is becoming more apparent, as these individuals leverage their platforms to shape political narratives. Musk’s public support for Donald Trump, including reported donations exceeding $100 million, illustrates the growing connection between digital influence and political power. This trend underscores a shift in the balance of power: from traditional media to decentralized, individual-driven networks. As populist sentiments rise in democratic societies, authoritarian regimes face their own challenges. Leaders in countries like China, Russia, and Iran are increasingly paranoid about losing control. They tighten their grip on power, fearing the ripple effects of global instability and dissent. However, the rise of populism also raises concerns about the long-term viability of democratic systems. In politically polarized societies, many citizens tie their identities to their political affiliations, which fuels divisiveness and undermines objective discourse. We cannot overlook the profound impact of technology on how societies function. Historian Yuval Noah Harari has extensively discussed the role of imagination in human evolution—the ability to construct shared beliefs and societal structures. In today’s world, technology is reshaping these shared constructs, influencing how people perceive their roles within society. Social media, in particular, has heightened the importance of visibility and influence. Unlike traditional media, where a few controlled narratives, today’s decentralized platforms allow anyone to command an audience. This democratization of influence creates new opportunities but also amplifies division and misinformation.As a firm believer in open and constructive dialogue, I welcome high-quality criticism and diverse perspectives. I also reflect on my own belief and mindful of my actions on social media. In this complex environment, it is vital to resist simplistic binaries of left versus right, or red versus blue. Instead, we should strive for nuanced understanding and thoughtful engagement with the issues at hand. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority."Lord ActonAs election day approaches, friends and readers ask how I am going to vote.Rather than endorsing any particular candidate or political party, I want to propose a more systematic strategy for preserving our democracy:Vote against incumbents, regardless of party or performance. Let's reflect on the real meaning of a free, democratic society. Is an election primarily about putting someone in power, or is it a means to ensure that no one becomes too powerful for too long?Many people go to the ballot box wishing for a great leader to carry out policies that will benefit them. But I believe the essence of electoral democracy is to prevent the accumulation of unchecked power.When Xi Jinping removed term limits to extend his leadership in China indefinitely, even some CCP members condemned this blatant power grab. Yet, in democracies, we often overlook how repeatedly voting for the same party or politicians, election after election, can also lead to the accumulation of power. The key difference, of course, is that democracies have built-in mechanisms for peaceful power transitions. But what truly distinguishes a leader-for-life from a party that never relinquishes its grip on power?Consider the consequences of prolonged one-party rule. California, despite its progressive image, grapples with a severe housing and homelessness crisis, exacerbated by zoning laws and entrenched political interests after decades of Democratic control. Similarly, Chicago's long history of Democratic governance has struggled to address deep-rooted urban challenges like segregation, poverty, and gun violence.On the other end of the spectrum, Utah, a Republican stronghold, demonstrates how dominant parties can exert undue influence, as seen in the intertwining of religious and governmental affairs.If you agree that one-party rule is bad, then you should not vote for just one party.In addition, there are several practical benefits to making "Vote Against the Incumbent" a movement:First, regular rotations in office help prevent the entrenchment of corruption and the abuse of authority. Incumbent entrenchment often leads to regulatory capture, where government regulations become tools for established interests to suppress competition. Regular power transitions can help break up these cozy relationships, promoting more dynamic and competitive markets.Second, while elected officials come and go, career bureaucrats often wield significant influence within government. Introducing new political leadership forces bureaucracies to stay politically neutral. Whenever there is a new boss, bureaucrats need to defend their operations, budgets, and priorities, thus promoting efficiency and transparency. Regular changes in leadership ensure that no one becomes too comfortable or unaccountable.Third, when parties anticipate regular alternation between governing and opposition roles, they are incentivized to be more realistic, pragmatic, and less ideological. In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington warned:"The spirit of party serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection." Political parties create career politicians, and politicians role-play to appeal to voters. This is how politicians get elected and parties become entrenched. However, I see no reason why voters should think and behave in a partisan manner and even adopt partisanship as their identity.I understand some people may find the idea of voting against incumbents regardless of their partisanship or performance absurd. For instance, some may argue that if the incumbent is doing a good job, votes should positively reinforce good governance and policies. But bear in mind that the goal isn't to reward good performance but to safeguard against the insidious nature of power. Even the most well-intentioned leaders can be corrupted by extended authority. History is replete with examples of benevolent rulers who, over time, became tyrants or grew complacent.Another question people may have is, "Won't this create instability?" Paradoxically, regular and peaceful transitions of power foster greater resilience than prolonged one-party rule. A truly functional democracy doesn't need great leaders; it needs robust systems that prevent any leader from becoming indispensable. By consistently voting against incumbents, we can help maintain the democratic churn that keeps power in check and forces a regular renewal of the social contract.Lastly, some might ask, "Isn't this throwing away my vote?" No – it's a strategic use of your vote to safeguard the health of our democracy. Every vote against an incumbent sends a powerful message: power must be earned anew in each election, not taken for granted. Ironically, mass media often reinforces incumbent advantages through familiar narratives and established relationships. Established parties and incumbents enjoy built-in name recognition and easier access to coverage. A consistent anti-incumbent voting bloc would force media outlets to pay more attention to challengers and fresh perspectives, potentially breaking up the echo chambers that reinforce political polarization.I hope by now you are convinced that the goal of electoral politics isn't to elect someone specific; it's to preserve a system where anyone can be removed from power peacefully. That's the true genius of democracy that we must strive to protect. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe
A mentor figure sent me an email about one of my latest blog posts. He said he stopped reading after the first line because I had used the left-right paradigm to frame my argument. My initial reaction was a mix of emotions – first, the pleasant surprise that people are actually reading my work, then a deeper reflection on how I express my ideas. This interaction challenged me to examine how I, too, sometimes fall into the trap of oversimplified thinking.I don't actually like the left-right paradigm, or even the four-quadrants political compass model. While these frameworks can be useful tools in academic research or media analysis, they often do more harm than good in our everyday discourse. Human beings are far more complex – our views shaped by countless experiences, relationships, and circumstances that can't be reduced to simple categories like "progressive" or "conservative," "collectivist" or "individualist."Consider how this oversimplification plays out in current debates. When we discuss immigration, or abortion, for instances, people are quickly labeled either "pro" or "anti," leaving no room for nuanced positions. These labels then become shields behind which we stop engaging with the actual complexity of the issue.This tendency to oversimplify extends beyond political labels. I've noticed how many people, myself included, sometimes fall into seeing the world as a story of heroes fighting villains. This isn't new – you can find this pattern in our oldest myths and stories. But when we apply this framework to modern politics, whether domestic or international, we lose something crucial: our ability to understand each other.Sure, there are people who do things most of us would condemn. But here's what's interesting: almost everyone believes they're on the right side of history. This creates a peculiar situation where large parts of society view the other half as either evil or foolish. Think about that for a moment – when you dismiss people who disagree with you as evil or stupid, they're likely thinking exactly the same about you. I've experienced this myself: times when I quickly judged someone's position, only to later understand the valid concerns underlying their perspective.This brings me to another thought-provoking conversation. While in India for the Mont Pelerin Society meeting, I met with my old friend Barun Mitra, who spent decades as an activist for freedom and classical liberalism. Over time, his thinking has evolved significantly, much like my own. Through our long discussions, we explored how our earlier certainties about political ideologies had given way to something more valuable: a recognition that what our world needs most is compassion and curiosity – the willingness to see through others' eyes and find ways to thrive together.This evolution in thinking suggests something fundamental about living in an open society: the strength of democracy lies not in everyone agreeing, but in our ability to disagree productively. When we encounter different viewpoints, perhaps we could approach them with curiosity rather than judgment. What experiences shaped this person's perspective? What valid concerns might they have that I haven't considered?Even as we value individual freedom and personal conviction, we must recognize that no one is truly an island. The idea of living in a completely isolated environment, like a hermit, isn't just unrealistic – it misses something fundamental about human nature. In our pursuit of individual freedom, we shouldn't forget that we naturally seek companions and community. Maybe this is the balance we need to find: celebrating our differences while acknowledging our deep need for connection, understanding, and acknowledgement.I invite you to reflect on your own experiences: When was the last time you changed your mind after truly listening to someone with a different perspective? How might our public discourse change if we approached disagreements with curiosity instead of judgment? Your comments and engagement with these ideas continue to challenge and refine my thinking. Together, perhaps we can work toward a more nuanced understanding of our complex world, one conversation at a time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe
Last year, Argentina elected what many would consider unthinkable a few years ago: a self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist president who campaigned while wielding a chainsaw.But here's the thing - Javier Milei's rise to power isn't just some political oddity. It's what happens when a country reaches its breaking point after decades of economic mismanagement.You know how they say no plan survives first contact with the enemy? Well, Milei's first months in office have been a crash course in that principle. He came in swinging with some pretty dramatic moves. According to the Central Bank of Argentina, he devalued the peso by 54% - basically ripping off the band-aid on Argentina's artificial exchange rate. He also scrapped the "Fair Prices" program, which was basically a fancy name for price controls that weren't fooling anyone.But here's where it gets real: these reforms hurt. Bad. Numbers from the Universidad Católica Argentina show that poverty rate has hit 53.3%. That's not just a statistic - we're talking about real people struggling to make ends meet. The big question is: will Argentinians have the patience to see this through?Here's what I find really interesting: watching Milei adapt to political reality. Think about it - this is a guy who literally campaigned with a chainsaw, promising to slash the state. Now he's having to play nice with the same political establishment he promised to demolish. It's not because he's "sold out" - it's because that's how politics works.The IMF situation perfectly illustrates this. Milei inherited a $44 billion arrangement from the previous government, and by January 2024, he was already in talks to modify it. The IMF, usually the stern parent of international finance, actually praised his "bold actions," which in IMF-speak is like getting a gold star.You know what's really fascinating? If Milei hadn't come along, someone else probably would have. Argentina was primed for this moment. It's like what happened in Brazil with their hyperinflation in the '90s - eventually, something had to give. Milei just happened to be the right person at the right time with the right message (and the right chainsaw).Unlike traditional politicians who relied on party machines, Milei went viral on Twitter and YouTube. He turned complex economic concepts into memorable soundbites. Love him or hate him, you can't deny he understood how to spread a message in the digital age. It's not just about having the right ideas anymore. It's about knowing how to package these messages for the TikTok generation.The Big PictureHere's what makes this whole situation so compelling: Milei's experiment isn't just about Argentina. Venezuela, Turkey, and other countries with similar economic problems might also be watching closely. Remember Carlos Menem in the '90s? Great start, messy finish. The real test for Milei isn't whether he can be popular or controversial enough to push through reforms - it's whether he can build institutions that outlast him.To fix Argentina's problems, Milei needs to focus on three big things:- Getting the central bank to stop printing Monopoly money- Fixing the mess that is provincial revenue sharing- Making it easier to hire and fire peopleFirstly, The Money Printing Machine. Argentina’s Central Bank isn't really independent. Every time the government needs money, it just fires up the printing press. It's like having a drunk friend with your credit card - you know it won't end well. Milei needs to not just stop the printing - he needs to make it institutionally impossible to start again. It is time to establish the currency board again.Secondly, The Provincial Problem. Argentina's provinces are like teenagers with their parents' credit cards. They spend freely because they know Buenos Aires will pick up the tab. This isn't just about cutting their allowance - it's about completely rewiring how fiscal federalism works. Brazil managed to do this with their Fiscal Responsibility Law in 2000. Argentina needs something similar, but with even stronger teeth.Thirdly, The Labor Market. Argentina needs to build institutions that can adapt to a modern economy. Think of how New Zealand revolutionized its labor markets in the '80s, but adapted for the era which nations are competing for talents and AI makes many jobs obsolete.Policies come and go with elections, but institutions shape countries for generations. That's the real revolution Argentina needs - not just a chainsaw, but a complete institutional rebuild. Argentina is running what might be the most ambitious experiment in market reform we've seen this century. If it works, it could change how we think about economic transformation in the digital age. If it fails, it might set back the cause of market reform for a generation.I'll leave you with this thought: while everyone's focused on Milei's chainsaw and his colorful statements, the real story is about whether Argentina can finally break free from its cycle of crisis. It's not about the man - it's about whether good institutions can finally take root in Argentina. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe
Boeing was once the gold standard in aviation, synonymous with safety, reliability, and engineering brilliance. For decades, its aircraft not only filled the skies but did so with unmatched precision and excellence. However, the Boeing of today is a far cry from the Boeing of yesterday. In the last few decades, the company has been embroiled in scandal, tragedy, and strategic miscalculations that seem almost unthinkable for an entity of its reputation.In many ways, Boeing is a case study of what happens when engineering processes gives way to bureaucratic performance metrics, and when close relationships with regulators result in oversight failures. It also shows the inevitable problems that arise when engineering culture—built on responding to feedback, improving incrementally, and adhering to evidence-based practices—is replaced by the desire to accommodate the wishes of higher authority.The 737 MAX: A Tragic Consequence of Shortsighted DecisionsThe most glaring example of Boeing’s downfall came with the 737 MAX. In 2018 and 2019, two of these jets crashed—Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 —taking the lives of 346 people. The tragedy sent shockwaves through the aviation industry and left the world questioning how Boeing, once the industry leader in safety, could have allowed such catastrophic failures.The root cause of these crashes was the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, also known as MCAS. MCAS was supposed to help pilots handle the 737 MAX's altered flight dynamics due to the addition of larger, more fuel-efficient engines. Rather than redesign the entire airframe—a costly endeavor—Boeing opted for a software patch that effectively disguised the aerodynamic challenges presented by the new engines. It was an engineering shortcut made under immense pressure to bring the aircraft to market quickly and keep pace with Airbus’s A320 Neo.The introduction of MCAS without sufficient pilot training or transparency was a denial of the evidence-based, safety-first philosophy that Boeing was once known for. When you ignore critical feedback—in this case, concerns from engineers about the rushed pace of the project—and fail to adapt your designs accordingly, the outcome is rarely a positive one. Boeing’s reluctance to acknowledge MCAS as a significant system worthy of attention and training ran directly counter to the fundamentals of sound engineering.Beginning of the End - the 1997 Merger with McDonnell DouglasTo understand Boeing's broader missteps, we must revisit the 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas, a pivotal moment that shaped the company’s subsequent trajectory. This merger was heralded as a bold move to create a dominant force in the aerospace industry. However, instead of being a union of equals, it represented a cultural collision that transformed Boeing from an engineering powerhouse into a bureaucratic government contractor.Before the merger, Boeing’s culture was rooted in engineering excellence, where decisions were made methodically, and always with an eye on safety of its aircraft. McDonnell Douglas, however, came with a different ethos—one that emphasized on the matrics for winning government contracts. Post-merger, it was this latter culture that won out."The bean counters are now in the cockpit," lamented one former Boeing engineer. This encapsulated the reality that the decisions steering the company were no longer driven by engineering but by key performance indices. As Boeing moved away from its engineering roots, it also moved away from its capacity to identify problems early and make the necessary improvements—a vital aspect of maintaining safety and quality.The problems Boeing faced were not limited to the 737 MAX. The KC 46 Pegasus tanker, developed for the U.S. Air Force, was plagued by delays, cost overruns, and quality control problems. Boeing underbid to secure the contract, hoping that subsequent defense spending would offset the initial losses. Instead, the program faced repeated setbacks, including issues with debris left in the aircraft and malfunctioning systems—issues that were emblematic of a company increasingly willing to cut corners. This wasn’t just about technical errors; it reflected a broader culture that no longer prized engineering discipline and rigor but prioritized speed and cost-saving measures instead. Without the iterative improvement and evidence-based engineering that had once defined Boeing, quality suffered.The CST 100 Starliner project, part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, was another high-profile misfire. The 2019 test flight failed due to a software error that caused the spacecraft to miss its intended orbit, ultimately uncovering more than 80 software issues. The failure was shocking given Boeing's storied aerospace expertise but not surprising considering the systemic issues that had come to plague the company. The Starliner underscored Boeing’s broader difficulty in transitioning from traditional aerospace engineering to the software-intensive demands of modern spaceflight. Where other companies like SpaceX have succeeded through deep integration between hardware and software development—leveraging iterative testing and rapid feedback—Boeing seemed ill-equipped to manage this new frontier.One of Boeing's major challenges was adapting to the increasingly software-driven nature of modern aerospace engineering. Boeing's engineering culture had been built on mechanical precision, aerodynamics, and structural design. But modern aircraft are no longer just flying machines—they are highly sophisticated networks of sensors, computers, and millions of lines of code. Boeing treated software development as an afterthought, something to be handled separately, rather than a core part of aircraft design.The essence of successful engineering is its reliance on iterative processes—constant testing, feedback, and adaptation. Software, even more so than mechanical systems, demands a fluid and responsive approach to development. The contrast with companies like Apple or Tesla, who pioneered concurrent hardware-software integration, is stark. In those companies, hardware and software teams work side-by-side from the very beginning of a project, ensuring seamless integration and continuous adaptation based on real-time feedback. Boeing, however, kept these teams siloed, treating software as an add-on rather than an integral component. This was a departure from the iterative, integrated approach that had previously defined Boeing’s success and contributed to the poor integration between MCAS and the aircraft’s other systems.Regulatory Capture and Too-Big-to-Fail MentalityThe 737 MAX debacle was not just an internal Boeing failure. It was a failure of the regulatory system as well—a glaring example of regulatory capture, where the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) became too closely aligned with the industry it was supposed to regulate. The FAA, due to both capacity issues and an overreliance on industry expertise, essentially delegated key parts of the certification process to Boeing itself.The idea of self-certification, which might sound reasonable when dealing with an experienced, trustworthy company, proved to be a fundamental misstep. Boeing was allowed to conduct its own safety checks, and unsurprisingly, it chose to minimize the MCAS system's significance to avoid delays and extra costs. This arrangement allowed Boeing’s flawed designs to go unchallenged, creating a systemic vulnerability that only became apparent after lives were lost. In an environment that no longer adhered to rigorous, evidence-based review and improvement, this was the tragic but inevitable outcome. It was not just a failure of engineering; it was a failure of oversight, and a striking reminder of what happens when the boundaries between regulator and industry become too blurred.Boeing's relationship with regulators also shielded it from facing the full consequences of its actions. The FAA’s cozy relationship with Boeing, born out of both necessity and complacency, allowed the company to operate with far too much freedom and far too little scrutiny. This wasn’t just a bureaucratic failure; it was a structural issue with deep implications for how aviation safety is ensured.The notion of being "too big to fail" wasn’t just implicit in Boeing’s relationship with the FAA; it was evident in how the company operated internally. Boeing’s sheer size and market dominance created an environment where executives seemed to believe they were insulated from real risks. They assumed that no matter what, Boeing would weather the storm—after all, it had the government as a client, a regulator in its corner, and a reputation that seemed unassailable. But as the events with the 737 MAX showed, complacency is dangerous, and unchecked power even more so.Boeing’s downfall is not just a lesson for aviation; it is a cautionary tale for any large entity that loses touch with its core values. When a company grows too big to listen, too bureaucratic to innovate, and too comfortable to adapt, it sets itself up for failure. Boeing’s history of excellence was built on engineering integrity, a commitment to quality, and a culture that empowered those who built its planes to speak up and lead. When that culture shifted—when cost-cutting, shareholder appeasement, and regulatory coziness took precedence—Boeing lost its way.The tragedy of the 737 MAX, the setbacks of the KC 46, and the failures of the Starliner were not isolated events. They were symptoms of a deeper rot within Boeing—a culture that placed financial engineering over aerospace engineering, and corporate metrics over safety. To rebuild itself, Boeing must fundamentally change its culture, its incentives, and its relationship with regulators. It needs to return to the basics of engineering excellence, to re-emphasize the importance of safety, and to learn from its own history before it's too late.Engineering development is abo
I’ve noticed that most Hong Kong immigrants lean center-right, often finding Canadian progressivism too extreme for their tastes. Some are eager to change their circumstances through the ballot box but feel that, as a minority, our influence is limited.The ProgressivesBefore discussing what Hong Kongers in Canada can do, let’s delve into the roots of Canadian progressivism.The political spectrum in Canada began to shift during the Great Depression and World War II. The Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), a socialist party founded in 1932, played a key role in advocating for progressive policies like old-age security, unemployment insurance, and Medicare.The rise of the CCF prompted the Liberal government under Mackenzie King to co-opt many of its ideas to maintain political power. The Liberal Party’s approach to the CCF, often described as "brokerage politics," involved adopting centrist policies and building broad coalitions to appeal to the median Canadian voter.The CCF, later renamed the New Democratic Party (NDP), continued pushing for structural changes aimed at reducing inequality and expanding public services. Tommy Douglas, premier of Saskatchewan and later the NDP's leader, pioneered universal healthcare in the province, which eventually became the model for Canada's national healthcare system.The Quiet Revolution in Quebec during the 1960s and 1970s was another pivotal moment. This period saw rapid modernization and secularization, led by the Quebec Liberal Party. It brought sweeping reforms in education, healthcare, and social services, along with a renewed emphasis on the French language and culture. It also fueled a rise in Quebec nationalism and a desire for greater autonomy within Canada.Justin Trudeau's Liberal government, elected in 2015, represents a recent progressive turn. Trudeau expanded welfare programs, legalized marijuana, increased child benefit funding, introduced a national carbon tax, and pursued policies focused on reducing poverty and promoting equality. His administration is often regarded as "the most left-wing government in Canada’s history."The ConservativesCan the opposite of the progressives be the answer? The Canadian Conservative Party once called itself the "Progressive Conservative" party—an apparent oxymoron.Historically, Canadian conservatism has its roots in British Toryism—a philosophy that initially supported a significant role for government, particularly in economic matters. Early Canadian conservatism was far from the small-government, free-market approach often linked to conservatism elsewhere. Instead, it embraced an interventionist state, focused on nation-building through ambitious infrastructure projects designed to promote growth and national unity. Canada's first Prime Minister, John A. Macdonald, exemplified this with the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway—a massive undertaking that connected the country from coast to coast, not only physically but also politically and economically.Similarly, during the Great Depression, Conservative Prime Minister R.B. Bennett introduced unemployment relief at a time when such measures were almost unheard of, demonstrating an openness to state intervention.Another defining feature of Canadian conservatism has been an emphasis on sovereignty and autonomy from international pressures. During the Cold War, Conservative leader John Diefenbaker resisted American demands to place nuclear missiles on Canadian soil, underscoring the party's stance on maintaining independence.Canadian conservatism took a dramatic turn in the 1980s under the leadership of Brian Mulroney. Mulroney championed free trade and privatization, moving away from the interventionist policies of earlier Conservative leaders. Privatizing crown corporations such as Air Canada and Petro-Canada marked a shift towards a more free-market ideology, aligning more closely with the conservative waves led by Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom.Mulroney’s economic liberalization was politically contentious, marking a significant transformation within Canadian conservatism. Around the same time, social issues like LGBTQ rights and abortion began to take center stage, creating divisions within the Conservative Party.The 1990s were challenging for the Conservatives, as they struggled with internal divisions after Mulroney's economic reforms. This created space for the emergence of the Reform Party, which appealed to Western Canadians disillusioned with the political status quo. The Reform Party’s focus on smaller government and regional representation eventually led to the formation of the Canadian Alliance in 2000, which then merged with the remnants of the Progressive Conservatives in 2003, forming today’s Conservative Party of Canada.The unified Conservative movement brought together diverse strands of conservatism, setting the stage for Stephen Harper’s leadership. Harper navigated this complex ideological landscape with caution, particularly regarding divisive social issues. Notably, he chose not to reopen the abortion debate, understanding the risk of alienating parts of his voter base.Meanwhile, Canada, especially Quebec, has undergone significant secularization since the 1960s. The secularization of the education system, particularly in Quebec, has diminished the influence of religious institutions in shaping public values. Regular church attendance in Canada dropped from around 40% in the 1980s to about 20% by 2015, correlating with more progressive attitudes on social issues.Economy and DemographyIn short, what we see as progressivism is deeply entrenched. However, Canada is also blessed. There are very few nations on Earth that enjoy the kind of abundance in natural resources that Canada does.Canada's energy profile is unique in its diversity and capacity. The country has the extraordinary luxury of meeting its domestic energy needs largely through renewable sources like hydropower, along with an established and reliable nuclear sector, while also benefiting economically from its vast reserves of oil sands and natural gas. This gives Canada a distinct advantage: the ability to rely on clean and sustainable energy sources for its domestic consumption while exporting fossil fuels, primarily to the United States, where demand remains high. The result is a rare blend of energy self-sufficiency and lucrative export opportunities—a combination that most countries can only dream of.However, Canada’s wealth in natural resources—from timber to hydropower to oil sands—while a source of economic stability, also carries inherent risks. Chief among them is the risk of complacency, a phenomenon commonly referred to as the "resource curse." This paradox occurs when countries rich in natural resources fail to diversify their economies, leading to an overreliance on resource extraction at the expense of other sectors.To diversify its economy, what Canada needs above all else is talent. Nations worldwide are fiercely competing to attract top talent, recognizing that a skilled workforce is crucial to driving technological advancement and economic resilience. Canada’s challenge is not a lack of appeal. The country is widely regarded as a desirable destination, offering a high quality of life, political stability, and a welcoming multicultural society. For many skilled professionals around the world, Canada represents an attractive option for building a future. Yet, despite this allure, Canada often struggles to fully capitalize on its ability to attract and, more importantly, retain the very talent it needs.One of the most significant barriers is the mismatch between Canada’s open-door immigration policy and the underwhelming outcomes many immigrants face upon arrival. Canada attracts highly educated and experienced individuals, but too often these professionals find themselves underemployed due to systemic barriers in the labor market. Credential recognition remains a substantial hurdle, particularly in regulated professions such as healthcare, engineering, and education.The challenge also extends to the private sector. While Canada has a robust public sector and a thriving resource economy, its startup ecosystem and technology sectors lag behind those of the United States and other global innovation hubs. A combination of high taxes, a risk-averse investment culture, and regulatory hurdles makes it difficult for many tech startups to scale, leading to a loss of entrepreneurial talent. Canada produces brilliant minds in its universities, but without a supportive infrastructure for startups and tech innovation, many of these individuals either leave or never get the opportunity to maximize their potential.Another contributing factor is Canada’s approach to talent development. The country has made considerable investments in higher education, and Canadian universities consistently rank among the best globally. However, there is a disconnect between academic training and the demands of the job market. Graduates often emerge with skills that do not fully align with current labor needs, particularly in high-growth areas like artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and data analytics. This skills gap means that despite having a pool of educated individuals, employers often struggle to find the specific expertise they require, leading to both unemployment and unfilled job vacancies.Immigration has long been a cornerstone of Canada's growth strategy. However, recent surveys reveal a notable shift in Canadian attitudes towards immigration. According to the Fall 2024 Environics Institute survey, 58% of Canadians now believe the country accepts too many immigrants, a sharp 31-point increase over the past two years. This marks the highest level of concern regarding immigration since 1998, suggesting a widespread apprehension that cuts across various segments of society. Canadians cite several underlying factors: the severe lack of
Over the years, I’ve received requests from those eager to dive deeper into the world of economics. While there are plenty of resources available for those who want to study the subject, I understand that many of you are looking for something more personal, something that reflects my unique perspective on these fundamental concepts.Well, here it is.I’m currently working on a new book that distills the entire field of economics into just one core concept: cost.Cost is the very foundation of every economic decision. If an action carries no cost, there’s no decision to be made. Economics begins and revolves around the notion of cost, but it’s often misunderstood or oversimplified. My goal is to break down this concept in a way that’s both practical and insightful, giving you a fresh understanding of the decisions we all make.Part 1: The Fundamentals of Economic Decision-MakingThe first part of the book will focus on the basics, i.e. opportunity cost. I’ll also delve into how cognitive biases cloud our decision-making, e.g. sunk cost fallacy and reflect on the nature of rationality. What does it mean to be rational, and is it always necessary? I’ll explore the link between modernity and rationality, questioning the assumptions that guide our everyday choices.Part 2: Competition—Bigger Isn’t Always BetterNext, I’ll turn the spotlight on market competition and the myth that scaling up is always the key to success. Many believe that success in business is all about driving down the average costs through scaling, but in reality, bigger isn’t always better. I’ll explore how the pursuit of economies of scale can lead to fierce competition, where profits are eroded, and only the consumers win. I’ll also discuss strategies businesses use to deter competition—and why monopolies succeed only when government plays a part.Part 3: Public Policy—The Illusion of Cost-Benefit AnalysisIn the third section, we’ll move into public policy and the messy reality behind cost-benefit analysis. While textbooks talk about market failures and public goods, the truth is that real-world decisions often suffer from mismatches—those who bear the costs aren’t always the ones who benefit. I’ll introduce public choice theory, showing why governments are no better equipped to solve what the market can’t. We’ll also tackle misunderstood concepts like public goods, externalities, and network effects, diving into how these issues shape infrastructure and the digital economy.Part 4: Time and UncertaintyIn the final section, I’ll explore the relationship between time, risk, and uncertainty. We’ll discuss the concept of time and the time value of money, where interest is not just the decision made by the Federal Reserve, but the market clearing price for money in the future. I’ll also challenge the conventional distinctions between money and debt. Ultimately, this section will offer readers a fresh perspective on what uncertainty is an what we can do about it.One More Reason Why I’m Writing this BookThis book isn’t just an intellectual exercise, it’s also an experiment in using technology. While all the ideas, writing, and structure of the book are mine, Generative AI will play a crucial role throughout the process. From research and fact-checking to editing, translation and even marketing, AI will assist me at every stage. This unique collaboration will also become the subject of another project, a book that documents my experience of using AI to enhance creativity and productivity. I want to challenge myself and explore how this partnership with AI can push the boundaries of what’s possible for solo creators like me.Stay tuned for more updates as I move forward with this exciting project. Meanwhile, please enjoy the review of the project I generated with Google’s Notebook LM. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit unsubject.substack.comLet me cut right to the chase: in the not-so-distant future, many small and medium-sized businesses are going to disappear. Why? Because of disintermediation. The market is shifting into a "barbell" structure. On one end, we’ve got these massive corporations, and on the other, there are solo entrepreneurs and small players running lean operations. If you’re somewhere in the middle, you’re probably getting squeezed out.