Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Wazz's avatar

It's both but not often presented like this, keep this quote in mind:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

― C.S. Lewis

The busybody Lewis describes is optimizing around some moral outcome. The outcomes are bad, it's intentional so we think of it as evil but it's not quite. Take Germany and energy, their policy is suicidal, it will wreck the third world (which can't compete for energy except coal, can't compete for fertilizer (derived from natural gas), and can't compete for food). Germany's under investment and killing of morally incorrect energy (nuclear, fossil fuels) aside from being impossible, is counter productive to their own aims (carbon free/neutral energy) because now they need to retreat to COAL which is worse than natural gas from a carbon perspective.

It's evil in the sense they have ignored every other variable (including feasibility) which has had predictably bad out comes, not just for Germany but the rest of the world. The myopia of having such a narrow goal, without consideration to other considerations is a derangement, which looks like incompetence but it isn't. The people in charge very competently marched towards their ill-fated goals.

The problem is people avoiding or otherwise unable to see reality, which is orthogonal to competency or malevolence. Competently moving towards wrong goal under wrong/false beliefs to the exclusion of other factors is z coordinate here. In so far as it is evil lies in not acknowledging/accepting/dealing with reality or being unwilling to course correct from bad policy. It's kinda of like my tweet here (https://twitter.com/BowTiedIT/status/1538693830496616449).

What's worse is there is a lot money to keep people focused on the wrong areas that Are dead ends. I think a tight monetary environment will force bad ideas to fall away. Renewables (and evs) simply can't replace the energy sector, we don't have the ore(s), supply chains, manufacturing, ect to do it. Worse, compared to nuclear and fossil fuels they loose on efficiency, further their usefulness is very localized (they don't make sense in MOST places on earth). The only way they made any sense is in a low cost of capital environment where you could arb the difference with low interest rate loans. Solar panels have a useful life of like 20 years which they get less efficient over time, from an energy perspective they have a 5 to 1 pay back ratio, meaning they take the energy it takes to make them is 5 x what they will produce in 1 year. Add in a loan to pay for it which will be like 7 years, and the true roi is like 10 years or half its useful life. Thats in a low cost of capital environment, what about when a consumer loan for them is 8 or 12%? Leasing? why bother that's break even at best. (DoombergT on twitter/substack has done great work showing why green tech is a loser at scale, so has peter ziehan.)

The list of derangements goes on, and no one here needs the list any way. Eventually pain will force change, as it Always does. (NFA) If you see a structural sector of the economy counter positioned to reality, go long on reality winning eventually.

Expand full comment
Ed Y.'s avatar

My personal belief is that this is a result of Rahm Emmanuel’s phrase: “never let a crisis go to waste”. They didn’t specifically plan the events as they played out. But their goal of a Great Reset was why they implemented all their policies. Rising gas prices are a feature, not a bug, for example.

Expand full comment
18 more comments...

No posts