Is Trump’s Iran War Like a Katrina Moment?

NEW ORLEANS - AUGUST 31:  Two men paddle in high water after Hurricane Katrina devastated the area August 31, 2005 in New Orleans, Louisiana. Devastation is widespread throughout the city with water approximately 12 feet high in some areas. Hundreds are feared dead and thousands were left homeless in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida by the storm.   (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

It’s no great insight to say Trump’s impulsive Iran War has been a big political loser for him. Even some of his and the war’s supporters would concede that point. “Katrinas” are also wildly overdetermined and over-diagnosed in political talk. How many “Obama’s Katrinas” were there? How many did Joe Biden allegedly have? But it did occur to me this morning that it is something like that for Trump but for a specifically Trumpian reason. Donald Trump’s great super power is changing the subject. He never sticks to one racket or con until its rung out of all its juice. He’s always on to some new thing because — long before we lived in the broken world of social media — Trump has always lived in the attention economy. Attention is the great commodity. It’s even more powerful for Trump as a defensive weapon. When something isn’t going great he’s always creating some new drama, some new thing to change the subject to. But what we’re seeing now is that Trump simply cannot change the subject. The whole Iran War story is devastatingly bad for him. And he simply has no way to stop it from being the big, dominating story. He can’t make any shiny object take its place. He’s stuck, not just militarily but politically as well.

Things a president does at home he can generally undo or just stop doing. Not always but usually, at least to a degree. Not long after the killing of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Jan. 24, the White House began moonwalking away from its intentionally high-profile and confrontational occupations of Midwestern Blue state cities. Mass deportations didn’t stop. A lot of the same ICE predations continued. But the temperature was reduced significantly and the high-profile, news-generating confrontations slowed. It was hurting Trump politically so he pulled back, at least from the actions generating news.

Abroad, things work differently. Even for a U.S. president, there are others parties involved. They can act unpredictably or beyond a president’s control. Tariffs were in a sense an example of this. Longterm, Trump has unleashed trade and economic forces the U.S. cannot easily control or recover from. But in the near term Trump could and in many case did simply pull the tariffs, often through carve-outs or other means that didn’t drive a lot of attention. Critically, every country targeted by tariffs was happy to give him an out. They weren’t going to make it hard. They just wanted the tariffs rescinded or reduced. Often they were willing to toast Trump’s capitulation as some kind of signal Trump victory.

Iran is a very different matter. The war is extremely high profile. It is unambiguously his war. It has affected everyone in the country through dramatically higher gas prices. It is also a catch-all explanation and point of blame for inflation and high prices generally even though the inflationary effects of the war are probably still mostly in the future. Iran meanwhile is in no mood to give him an out. Obviously the Iranian government wants to hurt the U.S. and Trump specifically as much as possible. They also realize that even if their situation is desperate, Trump’s is more so.

They say a shark has to keep moving forward or it will die (turns out this is only true for some sharks). For Donald Trump it’s changing the subject. I’m not saying he’s approaching political death. But he is stuck and unable to change the subject in what I think is a genuinely new way for him. And for his political prospects, it’s a very big deal.

Zimbabwe facts of the day

Zimbabwe, often considered an economic basket-case because of its history of farm seizures and hyperinflation, is enjoying an idiosyncratic boom. High prices for the metal and other commodities have led to a surge of cash through its highly informal economy. They have made it easier for authorities to stop printing money and meddling in currency markets; inflation is at its lowest in about 30 years. The IMF has repeatedly revised upwards estimates for economic growth, most recently to at least 7.5% for 2025, almost double the African average…

Gold is not the only source of growth. The current tobacco crop will be the largest on record. Lithium, chrome and platinum miners, many of them Chinese, have raised production. Zimbabwe’s diaspora, mainly in South Africa, sent back $2.5bn last year. So overall demand is higher than ever, says a banker.

Here is more from The Economist.  We are told that the private vault sector is booming too.

The post Zimbabwe facts of the day appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Have you ever had Have you ever had


Monday assorted links

1. Sindarov profile.  And: “I know this GM who made 2600 at 19 without reading a chess book in his life.”  And Magnus on Sindarov vs. Gukesh.

2. Inflation-adjusted book prices over time.

3. On the Amanat Iran book and its excellence.

4. More on the wet market hypothesis.  We should all be uncertain, but it is mood affiliation (with conspiracy theorizing, for one thing) to be convinced of Lab Leak.  It is contributing to negative emotional contagion.

5. Review of the new Knausgaard series.  By Max Norman: “(I’d rather read Knausgaard on defecation than predestination, let alone whether machines can think or trees can feel.)”‘

6. AI and the arts, a short Instagram video.

7. AI and the pancreatic vaccine.  More testing is needed, but there is a reasonable chance that we have a good treatment for pancreatic cancer, and AI was instrumental in that.  It is mRNA as well, so a double burn on the haters.

The post Monday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

 

Blue Origin launches third New Glenn rocket, but payload ends up in wrong orbit

Spectators along the beach in Cape Canaveral, Florida, enjoy a spectacular Sunday morning launch, taking in the view of a Blue Origin New Glenn rocket blasting off carrying a next-generation cellular broadband satellite. The company said later the AST SpaceMobile Bluebird 7 satellite ended up in the wrong orbit. Photo: Adam Bernstein/Spaceflight Now.

Blue Origin launched the company’s third New Glenn rocket Sunday, re-flying and successfully recovering a previously used first stage. But the rocket’s payload, a direct-to-cellphone communications satellite, ended up in the wrong orbit, the company said.

“We have confirmed payload separation,” Blue Origin, owned by Amazon-founder Jeff Bezos, posted on X. “AST SpaceMobile has confirmed the satellite has powered on. The payload was placed into an off-nominal orbit. We are currently assessing and will update when we have more detailed information.”

The Bluebird 7 satellite, built by AST SpaceMobile in Midland, Texas, is equipped with a 2,400-square-foot phased array antenna, the largest civilian antenna of its type ever put in low-Earth orbit.

The satellite is the second in a new generation of AST SpaceMobile data relay stations designed to seamlessly provide space-based 4G and 5G cellular broadband service directly to users anywhere in the world.

Blue Origin provided no additional information about the nature of Bluebird 7’s unplanned orbit and it was not immediately known what options, if any, might exist to eventually achieve the planned orbit.

But the launch clearly marked a setback to AST SpaceMobile’s timeline for deploying up to 60 such “block two” Bluebirds in an initial constellation, launching them with SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets, Indian LVM3 boosters and Blue Origin’s New Glenn.

The New Glenn launched Sunday was Blue’s third and the first using a previously flown first stage.

New Glenn rises from Launch Complex 36 on Sunday, April 19, 2026, near the historic Cape Canaveral lighthouse. Photo: John Pisani/Spaceflight Now.

Liftoff from the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station came at 7:25 a.m. EDT, 40 minutes after an unexplained hold in the countdown. When the count finally hit zero, the towering rocket’s seven methane-burning ME-4 engines ignited with a ground shaking roar and the booster began climbing away atop 3.8 million pounds of thrust.

The first stage appeared to work flawlessly, shutting down and falling away as planned about three minutes and nine seconds after liftoff. The rocket’s second stage, powered by two BE-3 engines, then ignited to continue the climb to an initial orbit.

The first stage, meanwhile, headed for a Blue Origin’s landing barge stationed several hundred miles down range in the Atlantic Ocean, flying itself to an on-target touchdown about nine minutes and 20 seconds after launch.

The same stage accomplished the same feat last November during the second flight of a New Glenn — NG-2 — albeit using a different set of engines.

“With our first refurbished booster we elected to replace all seven engines and test out a few upgrades including a thermal protection system on one of the engine nozzles,” Blue Origin CEO Dave Limp said in an earlier social media post. “We plan to use the engines we flew for NG-2 on future flights.”

About two-and-a-half minutes after the first stage landing Sunday, the second stage engines shut down as planned. A second upper stage engine firing was expected an hour and 10 minutes after launch, but that time came and went without any updates from Blue Origin.

About an hour later, however, the company reported the satellite had not been released into its intended orbit. The post did not say whether the second upper stage engine firing actually took place or if it did, whether it ran for the full duration.

Blue Origin plans to compete head-to-head with SpaceX to deliver commercial, military and science satellites to Earth orbit and deep space while deploying a fleet of Amazon-owned space-based LEO internet satellites intended to compete with SpaceX’s already-established Starlink system.

Blur Origin also is developing moon landers to deliver NASA cargo and astronauts to the lunar surface.

The New Glenn rocket is critical to all of those ventures. The company tentatively plans to launch a prototype Blue Moon lander on an unpiloted test flight this fall, followed by one and possibly two launches of Amazon LEO internet satellites before the end of the year.

But those plans will depend on the results of an investigation into what went wrong Sunday.

When the Supreme Court Legislates

In case you missed it, last week the NY Times got its hands on internal Supreme Court documents related to the first use in 2016 of the shadow docket to announce court orders without explanation. This, for me, was the striking part (boldface mine):

Justice Breyer responded later that day to the chief’s memo but did not address all its points. Such stays were unusual, he wrote, stating his objections mildly.

He skipped over the question of whether the plan was lawful, asking only: Why the rush? The circuit court had already set a date to hear the case in June. The first deadline for power plants to reduce their emissions was six years away; full compliance was not required until 2030. That was plenty of time for the case to play out through the legal system.

The chief wrote right back the next day sounding irritated and blunt.

Speed was vital, he said, because environmental regulation was going to be very expensive for states and the power industry. The sums involved could approach $480 billion, he asserted, and industry groups would have to start preparations immediately.

Let’s leave aside the reality of what happened: the power plant regulations were so tepid that the companies exceeded the standards without any regulation, other than to say that conservative Supreme Court judges suck at policy analysis.

What I cannot get past is the concern over the amount of $480 billion as an excuse to employ the major questions doctrine. If we take Roberts’ statement at face value and in good faith, it seems clear that an amount of $4.80 would not be an issue. So somewhere between $4.80 and $480 billion, the cost is too much. Is it $48 billion? $4.8 billion? $967 million?

How does one draw the line? How does a president know where that line is? And how should Congress write legislation as to not run afoul of a conservative Supreme Court?

It is just bullshit all the way down. Pack the Court, and when needs be, strip it of jurisdiction.

Updated thoughts on industrial policy

Photo by HundenvonPenang via Wikimedia.org

I’ve long been an industrial policy enthusiast. My favorite popular nonfiction book is Joe Studwell’s How Asia Works, a synthesis of decades of research about the economic miracles in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. I wrote a whole series of posts examining the successes and failures of various developing countries through the lens of Studwell’s ideas:

There are a bunch of other good books and papers about industrial policy that I’d recommend if you’re interested in the topic. These include Alice Amsden’s Asia’s Next Giant (about South Korea), Robert Wade’s Governing the Market (about Taiwan), “The New Economics of Industrial Policy” by Juhász et al. (2023), and the papers of the Industrial Policy Research Group.

Around the same time I discovered the industrial policy literature, the consensus was shifting within the big economic development agencies (the World Bank and the IMF). Whereas in previous decades, these organizations generally recommended against government meddling in the economy’s industrial structure, they’ve recently started to consider the kind of interventionist policies that Studwell recommends. In 2019, the IMF’s Reda Cherif and Fuad Hasanov wrote a paper called “The Return of the Policy That Shall Not Be Named: Principles of Industrial Policy”. They conclude that a Studwellian approach, if executed competently, can help a developing country grow faster than it would from just letting the market take its course:

We argue that the success of the Asian Miracles is based on three key principles that constitute “True Industrial Policy,” which we describe as Technology and Innovation Policy (TIP)…(i) state intervention to fix market failures that preclude the emergence of domestic producers in sophisticated industries early on, beyond the initial comparative advantage; (ii) export orientation, in contrast to the typical failed “industrial policy” of the 1960s–1970s, which was mostly import substitution industrialization (ISI); and (iii) the pursuit of fierce competition both abroad and domestically with strict accountability[.]

I was happy to see this shift — not because I’m certain that this sort of industrial policy is the secret to growth, but because I think it deserves to be in the discussion. So I’m also happy to see the World Bank now following suit, with a new report (or “book”) by Ana Margarida Fernandes and Tristan Reed entitled “Industrial Policy for Development: Approaches In the 21st Century”. The authors argue that although classic policy recommendations — macroeconomic stability, education, health, infrastructure, etc. — are still good, industrial policy can often help when layered on top of those basics.

I think it’s great to see the stigma about industrial policy going away. Not because this will lead to a wave of countries trying out such policies — that’s already happening — but because it’ll lead to more researchers taking the idea seriously. Dismissing the whole idea of industrial policy out of hand — as the World Bank and others did in the 1990s — is simply a policy of self-imposed ignorance. Countries need smart researchers to help them figure out which kind of industrial policies work and which don’t.

But as general interest in the topic has grown, my thoughts on industrial policy have also become more nuanced. As I’ve read more and written more about the idea, and as I’ve watched current events unfold, my thinking has evolved beyond “This is an important idea that deserves to be taken seriously”. So I thought I’d write a post briefly summarizing that evolution.

“Industrial policy” has become too broad of a category

One thing I always try to specify when I talk about “industrial policy” is that this term can mean a ton of different things. Most people think of it as government promotion of specific industries — autos, or electronics, or maybe just manufacturing in general. Others see export promotion — which is more about where products are sold than about which products they are — as the key industrial policy. Some people see FDI promotion as industrial policy; others don’t.

Even if we just focus on what you might call “classical” industrial policy — government promotion of specific industries — there’s a huge range of types of policies you might use. Protectionism — tariffs, import quotas, etc. — is often regarded as a tool for promoting manufacturing. That’s very different from export promotion. Direct government subsidies for favored industries are a common strategy — and one that’s on the rise throughout the world — but subsidies weren’t really used by many classic “industrial policy” success stories like Japan and Taiwan.

It’s kind of crazy that this huge diversity of policies and goals coexists under one single buzzword. It makes conversations about the topic difficult if not outright impossible. When people yell at me that “industrial policy is bad” or “industrial policy always fails”, I have no idea whether they’re talking about protectionism, or industrial subsidies, or government intervention in general.

If you read the IMF and World Bank papers on industrial policy, you can see that these distinctions really matter. The IMF paper explicitly contrasts export promotion with import substitution (protectionism), claiming that the former is very promising while the latter is usually bad. The World Bank report supports industrial parks and market-access assistance, while casting doubt on the effectiveness of subsidies and tariffs. In other words, even the people advocating industrial policy think that certain kinds are good and other kinds are bad.

In 2012 or even 2018 it made sense to talk about “industrial policy” as a single thing, because it basically just meant that researchers and policymakers should take a look at a bunch of different ideas that had been beyond the pale of orthodoxy in previous decades. But now that researchers and policymakers have actively started to look into those ideas — and to implement them on a large scale — it no longer makes sense to talk about “industrial policy”. We need to be more specific.

For developing countries, “just do FDI” looks like a viable strategy

In my series of posts on developing-country industrialization, I found a subset of countries that had clearly succeeded with a very simple, seemingly replicable formula: promoting FDI in manufacturing. I singled out Poland and Malaysia as countries that got rich in recent years simply by encouraging multinational companies to put their factories and research centers there:

Poland, especially, has succeeded amazingly using the FDI strategy. A lot of industrial policy enthusiasts — Ha-Joon Chang, for example — used to argue that developing countries should build their own domestic “national champions” instead of relying on foreign capital and know-how. That’s what Japan and Korea did, it’s true. But you’d probably be hard-pressed to name a Polish brand. And yet Poland’s economic performance since the end of communism has been absolutely stellar — it’s about to surpass Japan’s living standards, and is now even starting to catch up to Korea:

Source: OWID

Interestingly, FDI was also central to the development strategies of Singapore and Ireland — two of the richest countries on the planet. You’d also be hard-pressed to name a Singaporean or Irish brand. And China’s approach before the early 2010s — during its fastest era of growth — centered much more on FDI than on subsidies or on the promotion of national champions in general.

When you look at poor countries that got rich since World War 2 by building national champions, the list is pretty short — there aren’t a lot of South Koreas out there. But the list of countries that got rich, or nearly rich, by promoting FDI is getting longer by the decade. So while I wouldn’t discount the Korea strategy, I’m leaning toward the idea that the Poland approach is a lot easier to get right.

Why would it be easier to get rich through FDI than by building your own brands? I can think of a couple of reasons. For one thing, FDI is less risky — instead of having the government pick winners, you let multinationals try building a bunch of things in your country. It’s a way to let the market discover comparative advantage, while the government simply assumes that some sort of competitive advantage exists within the broad category of export manufacturing.

FDI promotion also requires good institutions. If you’re trying to get German companies to build their factories in your country, you probably need to have the kind of property rights that German companies are used to dealing with. Poland became the workshop of Europe by forcing itself to shed its communist-era institutions and become more like the EU.

Note that the new World Bank report focuses on industrial parks as its favorite industrial policy. Industrial parks are a key part of the Poland/Malaysia/Singapore/Ireland strategy — a tool of FDI promotion. I predict that for developing countries, this approach will become more recognized as the closest thing we have to a universal push-button solution for getting out of poverty.

For developed countries, industrial policy is technology policy

Right now, much of the economic discussion in the U.S. is about AI — how to promote it, how to enable it, and how to regulate it.

This is classic industrial policy. It’s picking a winner! If you rewrite regulation to allow more construction of data centers, or if you try to recruit top AI researchers, or if you use export controls to prevent a competing company from seizing the initiative in AI, or if you do any special thing to promote the industry, you are picking AI as a winner. (The fact that almost every country is picking AI as a winner doesn’t change that fact — there was a time when every country thought it was essential to have its own auto industry.) And I don’t see a lot of free-market economists disagreeing with this pick.

Nor is this the first hot new technology that the American government has specifically encouraged within my lifetime. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 selectively deregulated the internet sector, because everyone agreed that the internet would be economically important. The National Science Foundation subsidized the internet’s initial buildout, as did the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. State governments provided telecom companies with tons of subsidies to build out wireless networks, and so on.

We picked the internet as a winner, and it was a winner. Notably, very few of the free-market enthusiasts who criticized industrial policy in developing countries raised the alarm about the U.S. picking winners in the internet age. The industrial policies we used to pick that winner fell under the rubric of things that economists had already admitted that rich countries ought to be doing — infrastructure, deregulation, and R&D promotion.

But for rich countries, technology policy is industrial policy. The emergence of a major new technology puts a developed country in the position of a developing country in a narrow, limited sense. A poor nation lacks a car industry, an electronics industry, a machinery industry, a shipbuilding industry, and so on. America in 1985 lacked an internet industry, and America in 2022 lacked an AI industry, because those technologies had just been invented.

So I think rich countries actually have a lot to learn from developing countries when it comes to technological revolutions. Building something that no one has ever built before is a task that shares a lot in common with that of building something that your country has never built before. It’s not the exact same problem, but it’s related. So the people trying to figure out how to make America competitive in AI should study the South Korean Heavy and Chemical Industry initiative, or Taiwan’s promotion of TSMC, or METI’s promotion of Japan’s auto industry.

China’s approach has big flaws

In the last few years, China embarked on an unprecedented policy experiment. The Chinese government has subsidized high-tech manufacturing industries to a far greater degree than any other country in history. This has led to a boom in high-tech manufacturing, increases in China’s global market share in those industries, a huge surge in Chinese exports (known as the Second China Shock), and to the emergence of some Chinese national champions like BYD.

But we’re definitely starting to see the downsides of this experiment. First and foremost, paying dozens of companies to all make the same products ends up creating brutal price wars that compete profit margins toward zero:

Margin compression deprives companies of R&D budgets, which must then be substituted by government research. It also leads to deflation, which exacerbates bad debts, burdening households, corporations, and the financial system.

China’s leaders realize these issues. Cutting industrial subsidies will be politically difficult, especially because the country is still suffering low demand from the bursting of its real estate bubble. But they’re starting to do it — for example, the government is phasing out subsidies for trading in old cars, leading to a predictable plunge in new car sales.

According to the standard “export discipline” playbook — which Studwell articulated, and which the 2019 IMF paper on industrial policy endorsed — this is exactly what you’re supposed to do. A wave of subsidies for export manufacturing results in a Cambrian explosion of manufacturers; the brutal global market selects the best of these; the government withdraws subsidies and lets all the inferior manufacturers die, while the national champions live and flourish and experience healthier margins.

This may work for China, if subsidies can successfully be withdrawn. But it’ll leave behind a major problem: bank debt. By some estimates, the bulk of China’s unprecedented industrial subsidies are actually in the form of artificially cheap bank loans:

Source: OECD via Robert Alan Ward

This means that if and when China forces most of its subsidy recipients into bankruptcy — just as Joe Studwell and the IMF say you’re supposed to do! — it’ll result in a huge wave of bad debts. Those bad debts will sit on the books of Chinese banks, right alongside the existing mountain of bad debts from the real estate bust.

If you believe that the Chinese state is unified, and that Chinese banks and the government are the exact same thing, and that the government simply directs borrowing without regard to profit and loss, then maybe you think bank balance sheets just don’t matter in the People’s Republic. But if you think bank managers in China have any discretionary power over lending — how much, or to which companies — then you have to think that having the bank’s books crammed with bad debts will have some kind of effect.

In particular, Chinese banks will be heavily incentivized to “evergreen” loans to zombie companies that they’ve already lent to. Those subsidized lifelines will delay the day of reckoning, allowing banks to pretend their balance sheets are healthier than they are, while diverting financing from younger, healthier companies. This is probably what happened in Japan after its bubble burst in the early 1990s.

The standard model of industrial policy — temporary export subsidies — imagines these as being provided at taxpayer expense. But if financial intermediaries are important — and most rapidly industrializing countries rely heavily on banks rather than on markets for financing — then it’s not so simple. A wave of corporate failures may be healthy for margins, but could cause years of low growth as banks are paralyzed with fear and tethered to zombie companies. And it’s not clear that state ownership and control of the banking system is an effective remedy, because even in a communist system, middle managers are still probably afraid for their personal careers (or their lives) if their institutions perform poorly.

This means we shouldn’t hail the Chinese industrial policy experiment as a success until we wait a few years. More generally, I think discussions of industrial policy tend to downplay the role of financial systems, and banking systems in particular. I plan to write a lot more about that soon.


Subscribe now

Share

Is “Satoshi Nakamoto” Really Adam Back?

The New York Times has a long article where the author lays out an impressive array of circumstantial evidence that the inventor of Bitcoin is the cypherpunk Adam Back.

I don’t know. The article is convincing, but it’s written to be convincing.

I can’t remember if I ever met Adam. I was a member of the Cypherpunks mailing list for a while, but I was never really an active participant. I spent more time on the Usenet newsgroup sci.crypt. I knew a bunch of the Cypherpunks, though, from various conferences around the world at the time. I really have no opinion about who Satoshi Nakamoto really is.

Eight Rules to Regain Public Trust in Academia

The Yale Report was quite good but for concision I prefer Kevin Bryan’s Eight Rules:

1. Produce and Teach Useful Knowledge
Universities exist to generate and teach useful knowledge. This knowledge is grounded in skeptical inquiry, empirical evidence, and logical deduction. “Useful” includes not only practical applications but also fundamental discoveries that expand our understanding of the world, even if their benefits are long-term.
2. Be Useful to All of Society
Universities are subsidized only if society at large finds them valuable. Research may take time to bear fruit, but its insights should ultimately serve the public good, communicated openly and accessibly, and presented with epistemic humility. Teaching should be done with care and draw on up-to-date research.
3. Attract Talent from All of Society
Useful knowledge can be created by people from any social or economic background. Do not waste talent. Do not select talent based on who knows “how to play the game”. Avoid insular language or norms that deter people from entering research.
4. Neutral, Objective Research Produces Useful Knowledge
Research must be neutral and objective. It is true that everyone has their individual background and preferences; nonetheless, unbiased research is still possible. Tradition, folk knowledge, and storytelling all play an important roles in society, but they are not the purpose of universities. There is no “Western science” or culturally-determined “ways of knowing”. Rather, research is open to all and can be performed identically regardless of background.
5. Hire, Promote, and Cite Based on Knowledge Contribution
Hiring, promotion, and citation must be based on an individual’s contribution to knowledge. Nepotism, group preferences, and adherence to specific “schools of thought” corrupt this process. When advancement is not based on merit, the public rightly questions our integrity and the objectivity of our findings.
6. Keep Personal Views Out of Research and Teaching
A scholar’s personal politics should be invisible in their research and teaching. If a finding is predictable based on the author’s identity or known views, the process has failed. Objectivity is the hallmark of credible science. Academics may hold private beliefs like anyone else, but their academic work must stand apart from them.
7. Research Fraud is Unacceptable
Fraud destroys trust. Misrepresentation of results, selective reporting, or methods designed to publish rather than to discover are also harmful. Proven fraud must bring immediate dismissal, as it violates the core purpose of academia.
8. Scientific Institutions Should Be Apolitical
Universities, journals, and scientific societies must remain non-partisan. Their public statements must be rare, restricted to issues of direct expert consensus, and made only when silence would be a greater threat to their integrity than speaking. Activism sacrifices credibility for influence – or worse yet, sacrifices credibility and influence alike.

I would add 9) Grades must be objective and useful discriminators of talent.

The post Eight Rules to Regain Public Trust in Academia appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Blue Origin's rocket reuse achievement marred by upper stage failure

The third flight of Blue Origin's heavy-lift New Glenn launcher began Sunday with the company's first successful reflight of an orbital-class booster, but ended with a setback for Jeff Bezos' flagship rocket, a key element in NASA's Artemis lunar program.

The 321-foot-tall (98-meter) New Glenn launch vehicle ignited its seven methane-fueled BE-4 engines at 7:25 am EDT (11:25 UTC) Sunday, beginning a slow climb from its launch pad at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida.

The main engines, each producing more than a half-million pounds of thrust, accelerated the rocket past the speed of sound in about a minute-and-a-half. Three minutes into the flight, the booster switched off its engines and fell away from New Glenn's upper stage, powered by two BE-3U engines burning liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.

Read full article

Comments

The engineering method

Photo of a Gothic cathedral interior with colourful stained glass windows and ornate chandeliers illuminating the space.

How humans built beautiful, lasting structures without science or mathematics, using only engineering rules of thumb

- by Aeon Video

Watch on Aeon

Fuel for thought

Coloured microscopic image of mitochondria in a cell with red structures and blue outlines on a teal background.

A brain fit for the 21st century is one that understands – and respects – its own bioenergetic foundations

- by Hannah Critchlow

Read on Aeon

April 19, 2026

On the evening of April 18, 1775, the people who lived in the British colony of Massachusetts had gone to bed with the sun, as usual. By the evening of April 19, everything had changed. In the past twenty-four hours, soldiers from their own government had opened fire on them, killing their own people. And Massachusetts men had fired back.

It was hard to understand how things had gotten so bad. Only a dozen years before, at the end of the French and Indian War in 1763, Bostonians had looked forward to a happy future in the British empire. British authorities had spent time and money protecting the colonies, and colonists saw themselves as valued members of the empire. They expected to prosper as they moved to the rich lands on the other side of the Appalachian Mountains and their ships plied the oceans to expand the colonies’ trade with other countries.

But that euphoria faded fast. Almost as soon as the war was over, to prevent colonists from stirring up another expensive struggle with Indigenous Americans, King George III prohibited the colonists from crossing the Appalachian Mountains. Then, to pay for the war just past, the king’s ministers pushed through Parliament a number of revenue laws.

In 1765, Parliament passed the Stamp Act, requiring the payment of a tax on all printed material—from newspapers and legal documents to playing cards. It would hit virtually everyone in the North American colonies. Knowing that local juries would acquit their fellow colonists who violated the revenue acts, Parliament took away the right to civil trials and declared that suspects would be tried before admiralty courts overseen by British military officers. Then Parliament required colonials to pay the expenses for the room and board of British troops who would be stationed in the colonies, a law known as the Quartering Act.

But what Parliament saw as a way to raise money to pay for an expensive war—one that had benefited the colonists, after all—colonial leaders saw as an abuse of power. The British government had regulated trade in the empire for more than a century. But now, for the first time, the British government had placed a direct tax on the colonists without their consent, a right the king had guaranteed to Englishmen in the Magna Carta of 1215. Then it had taken away the right to a trial by jury—also a historical right—and now it was forcing colonists to pay for a military to police them.

Far more than money was at stake. The fight over the Stamp Act tapped into a struggle over a profound question of human governance: Could the king be checked by the people?

This was a question the colonists were perhaps uniquely qualified to answer. While the North American colonies were governed officially by the British crown, the distance between England and the colonies meant that colonial assemblies often had to make rules on the ground. Those assemblies controlled the power of the purse, which gave them the upper hand over royal officials, who had to await orders from England that often took months to arrive. This chaotic system enabled the colonists to carve out a new approach to politics even while they were living in the British empire.

Colonists naturally began to grasp that the exercise of power was not the province of a divinely ordained leader, but something temporary that depended on local residents’ willingness to support the men who were exercising that power.

The Stamp Act threatened to overturn that longstanding system, replacing it with tyranny.

When news of the Stamp Act arrived in Boston, a group of dockhands, sailors, and workers took to the streets, calling themselves the Sons of Liberty. They warned colonists that their rights as Englishmen were under attack. Lawyer John Adams recognized that the Sons of Liberty were changing the political equation. He wrote that gatherings of the Sons of Liberty “tinge the Minds of the People, they impregnate them with the sentiments of Liberty. They render the People fond of their Leaders in the Cause, and averse and bitter against all opposers.”

John Adams’s cousin Samuel Adams, who was deeply involved with the Sons of Liberty, recognized that building a coalition in defense of liberty within the British system required conversation and cooperation. As clerk of the Massachusetts legislature, he was responsible for corresponding with other colonial legislatures. Across the colonies, the Sons of Liberty began writing to like-minded friends, informing them about local events, asking after their circumstances, organizing.

They spurred people to action. By 1766 the Stamp Act was costing more to enforce than it was producing in revenue, and Parliament agreed to end it. But it explicitly claimed “full power and authority to make laws and statutes...to bind the colonies and people of America...in all cases whatsoever.” It imposed new revenue measures.

News of new taxes reached Boston in late 1767. The Massachusetts legislature promptly circulated a letter to the other colonies opposing taxation without representation and standing firm on the colonists’ right to equality in the British empire. The Sons of Liberty and their associates called for boycotts on taxed goods and broke into the warehouses of those they suspected weren’t complying, while women demonstrated their sympathy for the rights of colonists by producing their own cloth and drinking coffee rather than relying on tea.

British officials worried that colonists in Boston were on the edge of revolt, and they sent troops to restore order. But the troops’ presence did not calm the town. Instead, fights erupted between locals and the British regulars.

Finally, in March 1770, British soldiers fired into a crowd of angry men and boys harassing them. They wounded six and killed five, including Crispus Attucks, a Black man who became the first to die in the attack. Son of Liberty Paul Revere turned the altercation into the “Boston Massacre.” His instantly famous engraving showed soldiers in red coats smiling as they shot at colonists, “Like fierce Barbarians grinning o’er their Prey; Approve the Carnage, and enjoy the Day.”

Parliament promptly removed the British troops to an island in Boston Harbor and got rid of all but one of the new taxes. They left the one on tea, keeping the issue of taxation without representation on the table. Then, in May 1773, Parliament gave the East India Tea Company a monopoly on tea sales in the colonies. By lowering the cost of tea in the colonies, it meant to persuade people to buy the taxed tea, thus establishing Parliament’s right to impose a tax on the colonies.

In Boston, local leaders posted a citizen guard on Griffin’s Wharf at the harbor to make sure tea could not be unloaded. On December 16, 1773, men dressed as Indigenous Americans boarded three merchant ships. They broke open 342 chests of tea and dumped the valuable leaves overboard.

Parliament closed the port of Boston, stripped the colony of its charter, flooded soldiers back into the town, and demanded payment for the tea. Colonists promptly organized the Massachusetts Provincial Congress and took control of the colony. The provincial congress met in Concord, where it stockpiled supplies and weapons, and called for towns to create “minute men” who could fight at a moment’s notice.

British officials were determined to end what they saw as a rebellion. In April they ordered military governor General Thomas Gage to arrest colonial leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock, who had left Boston to take shelter with one of Hancock’s relatives in the nearby town of Lexington. From there they could seize the military supplies at Concord. British officials hoped that seizing both the men and the munitions would end the crisis.

But about thirty of the Sons of Liberty had been watching the soldiers and gathering intelligence. When the soldiers set out on the night of April 18, two Sons of Liberty flashed two lanterns in the steeple of the Old North Church—the highest point in Boston—to signal to watchers that the soldiers were traveling across Boston Harbor to Charlestown. Armed with that knowledge, messengers could avoid the troops and raise the alarm along the roads to Lexington and Concord.

Paul Revere and William Dawes headed for Lexington. There, they warned Adams and Hancock and then set out for Concord. They picked up young doctor Samuel Prescott, who had been in Lexington courting, on their way. British soldiers stopped Revere and Dawes, but Prescott got away and made it to Concord. As they heard the news, families set off a system of “alarm and muster” developed months before for just such an occasion, ringing bells and banging drums to alert the next house that there was an emergency.

Just before dawn on that chilly, dark April morning, militiamen had heard the news and were converging on Lexington Green. When the soldiers marched onto the Lexington town green in the darkness just before dawn, they found several dozen minute men waiting for them. An officer ordered the men to leave, and they began to mill around, some of them leaving, others staying. And then, just as the sun was coming up, a gun went off. The soldiers opened fire. When the locals realized the soldiers were firing not just powder, but also lead musket balls, most ran. Eight locals were killed, and another dozen wounded.

The outnumbered militiamen fell back to tend their wounded, and about 300 Regulars marched on Concord to destroy the guns and powder there. But news of the arriving soldiers and the shooting on Lexington town green had spread through the colonists’ communication network, and militiamen from as far away as Worcester were either in Concord or on their way. By midmorning the Regulars were outnumbered and in battle with about 400 militiamen. They pulled back to the main body of British troops still in Lexington.

The Regulars headed back to Boston, but by then militiamen had converged on their route. The Regulars had been awake for almost two days with only a short rest, and they were tired. Militiamen fired at them not in organized lines, as soldiers were accustomed to, but in the style they had learned from Indigenous Americans, shooting from behind trees, houses, and the glacial boulders littered along the road. This way of war used the North American landscape to their advantage. They picked off British officers, dressed in distinct uniforms, first. By that evening, more than three hundred British soldiers and colonists lay dead or wounded.

Even before the British soldiers made it back down the Battle Road from Concord on April 19, militiamen—both white and Black, free and enslaved—from the Massachusetts countryside, furious that soldiers of their own government had shot at them and killed their neighbors, rushed to surround Boston, laying siege to the soldiers and British officials there.

By the next morning, more than 15,000 militiamen surrounded the town of Boston. The Revolutionary War had begun.

Just over a year later, the fight that had started over the question of whether the king could be checked by the people would give the colonists an entirely new, radical answer to that question. On July 4, 1776, they declared the people had the right to be treated equally before the law, and they had the right to govern themselves.

Share

Damage

Jessica Chastain Says Apple TV Will Finally Release ‘The Savant’

Marc Malkin, Variety:

Jessica Chastain says Apple TV is finally going to release her political thriller series “The Savant.” [...]

“Before it was like, ‘I don’t know if we’re going to see it,’ but now I can say, ‘We’re going to see it,’” Chastain told me exclusively on Saturday at the Breakthrough Prize ceremony in Santa Monica.

As for when, sources tell me that Apple is planning for a July release.

Previously, re: The Savant’s limbo release date.

 ★ 

New Chinese edition of Who Gets What and Why

 There's a new (October, 2025) Chinese edition of my 2015 book Who Gets What ― and Why: The New Economics of Matchmaking and Market Design.  It's the same translation as the first edition, with a new (improved) title, closer to the English.  This is the simplified character version, distributed on the mainland.

中信出版 | 匹配:谁能得到什么,以及为什么 诺贝尔经济学奖得主、市场设计奠基人代表作品 商品图0 

 

The 2016 traditional character translation is still in use in Taiwan:

《創造金錢買不到的機會》書籍圖片-1 

 

How long should a college degree take?

It takes most college students at least four years to earn a bachelor’s degree. Christie Williams finished in three months.

The North Carolina human resources executive spent two months racking up credits through web tutorials after work in 2024, then raced through 11 online classes at the University of Maine at Presque Isle in four weeks. Later that year, she went back to earn her master’s — in just five weeks. The two degrees cost a total of just over $4,000.

Since then, she has coached a thousand other students on how to speed through the state college, shaving off years and thousands of dollars from the usual cost of a degree.

Here is the full story, via Anecdotal.

The post How long should a college degree take? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Discovering Prince, Ten Years Later

It's been a decade since we lost Prince, and I wanted to take a moment to offer a look back at some of the pieces I've written over the years, and share some of the work I've done, and hopefully it will give you a chance to explore some aspect of his artistry or legacy that you haven't yet had a chance to discover!

Perhaps a good place to start: It's time to discover Prince — a set of starting points to look at Prince's musical catalog, with selected albums (with more than 40 albums to pick from, it can be overwhelming to know where to start!) and some playlists that I created specifically to help new fans find out exactly why we love his music so much.

Another comprehensive overview: Every video Prince ever made. I walked through all of the music videos Prince made over the four decades of his career, offering some info and context that might help you find which ones are most compelling (or weird!) and worth your time.

I've also gotten to guest on a number of podcasts and in other media over the years to discuss various aspects of Prince's career. Perhaps none was more exciting for me than talking about Prince's history of technological innovation for the official Prince podcast. Then, no less than the New York Times described me as a "Prince scholar" when it covered the discovery of the earliest known footage of Prince as a child. There are a bunch of other podcast appearances (see below) but these felt like the pinnacle of legitimacy for my career as a Prince fan.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Prince (@prince)

Here on my site, there are some pieces I wrote to try to explain a few of Prince's masterworks. I wanted to give a sort of x-ray view into the larger cultural and even political context behind his choices when Prince created his best-known artistic expressions:

  • I Know Times Are Changing: This is the minute-by-minute story of how the song Purple Rain was created — covering everything from the background story of how conservative rock fans had hounded Prince's band off the stage at the turn of the 80s, to a glimpse into Prince's editing process where he turned a debut of his band into his signature song.
  • How Prince Won the Super Bowl: Many people know that Prince played the greatest Super Bowl halftime show of all time, but very few know that it wasn't just a scintillating musical performance. I get into why Prince didn't play his biggest hits like "When Doves Cry" and "Kiss", and how the show was a deeply personal statement on race, equity, and legacy.
  • Prince Interactive: Shortly after Prince's passing, I collaborated with several of the people who maintained Prince's (many!) websites over the years to help create the Prince Online Museum, an archive of many of Prince's digital works over the years. The earliest of these digital experiences is the Interactive CD-ROM which Prince released in 1994. I created a walkthrough video of the game which is shared as a resource on the site for those who've never gotten a chance to see the game in the years since its release.
  • Prince's Own Liner Notes On His Greatest Hits: I have worked hard to preserve Prince's extensive digital archives over the years, and this is one of the bits I'm most proud of. For the release of his first greatest hits set in 1993, Prince compiled a list of draft notes for his former manager Alan Leeds to use as the basis of the box set's liner notes. This draft was later posted on Prince's first website, and then quickly deleted — but not before I was able to archive a copy! So I was able to share the only surviving copy of Prince's first-person commentary on the biggest hits of his career, which is well worth a read.
  • Message From The Artist: This is another bit of digital archiving from Prince's original website of a letter that was briefly posted 30 years ago before being lost to history. In it, Prince explained the spiritual and artistic reasons behind his shocking decision to change his name to an unpronounceable symbol, and laid out the battle for ownership and control of his music which would come to define the second half of his career. The letter was quickly amended to be far less personal, and then deleted completely from Prince's website, but I was able to hold onto a copy that we can now read for ourselves.

Then, there are some fun artifacts and experiences about Prince that I found to be worth sharing, and other folks have found them to be pretty fun, too. One of my most favorite stories is The Purple Raincheck, about the time that Prince invited me to his house, but I couldn't go. And yet somehow, in true Prince fashion, I ended up with an even better story in the end anyway. If you've ever wanted to know what it's like to roll up to Prince's Oscars party, this is the one for you.

At the other end of the nerdy spectrum, there's this piece about my favorite floppy disc of all time, a rarity I was able to track down which contained the obscure font that Prince's team sent out to publications when he had changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol, so that they could properly render his trademark icon. Later, with the help of the brilliant minds at Adafruit, I was able to recover the data from the disc after almost three decades, through some vintage technology and a little bit of good luck.

For Minnesota Public Radio's The Current, we also dug into Prince's history as a computer nerd. On Switched on Pop, we dug into Why U Love 2 Listen 2 Prince, with an incredible audio breakdown showing how Prince influenced everybody — including a direct connection to the biggest album of all time.

Dig, if u will

We've been lucky to have a global community of Prince scholars that's formed over the years, which regularly hosts academic symposia, publishes papers and books, delivers remarkable talks on every aspect of Prince's work and the impact of his legacy, and in general uses his art as the starting point for some pretty extraordinary cultural exploration. One manifestation of that tendency to take his work seriously is the spreadsheet of Prince recordings, which is a fan-created work designed to provide a canonical reference for the thousands of compositions that Prince created over his career, unifying the conversations and discussions that people have. This is genuine nerd stuff!

And finally, one of the things I'm most proud of is this talk I delivered just a few weeks after Prince passed, in Minneapolis on what would have been his 58th birthday. It covers a really broad swath of Prince's influences and both his technical innovations and fierce battle for artistic independence. But it also dives into a lot of my background and my family's personal history, and connects it to a lot of themes of immigration and the systems that govern how this country moves. A decade on, I think some of these themes resonate more than ever, and if you're willing to set aside some time for it, I'd really love for more people to watch it, as I think it speaks to so many of the things I care most deeply about.

In all, after the initial grief and shock of his loss, I've been pleased to see Prince's legacy and impact grow. It's been wonderful to see so many people be surprised and delighted at all the different ways his work and innovative ideas remain relevant and resonant years and even decades after he created them. And I never get tired of people around the world sending me links or images of Prince or Prince-related items, saying "this reminded me of you!". Whether it's from old friends or people I've never met, it's something very special to be connected to others through the art and creativity of a fiercely independent spirit.

Above all else, Prince wanted to encourage people to create and be creative, to have mastery over their work and their lives, to be their true selves, and to be loving and compassionate towards others. Like everyone, he was flawed and complicated and weird and contradictory. But unlike anyone, he was able to create new worlds that millions of people got to live in inside their imaginations, and to fight impossible battles against all the odds and still somehow prevail.

That's still an inspiring example everyone can follow, no matter who your are, or how you create in the world. And best of all, Prince has created a perfect soundtrack to help you do it.

Will college get fixed?

That is the topic of my latest Free Press column.  Here is one excerpt:

So schools will respond to cost pressures by letting quality deteriorate. More instruction will be of the inferior online variety. There are very good online experiences, but schools are too bureaucratic and not run well enough to deliver them. Fewer professors will be full-salaried, tenure-track professors. Administrators and staff will grow at much slower rates than over the last 20 years, a positive development.

That overall picture may sound grim, but adjustments will kick in to limit the costs. A global market will ensure that adjunct faculty are smarter and better than before. Students will get better at using AI to teach themselves, filling in the gaps left by university budget shortages.

At the same time, colleges and universities will get better at marketing and fundraising. Schools with famous football and basketball teams will be just fine. Schools will intensively market a few academic superstars and let the quality of their median tenured faculty decline. Every possible profit center in a university will be mined for extra revenue, whether extra housekeeping service for dormitory living or renting out the swimming pool and university library to nearby retirees.

And this:

Perhaps you commonly hear it said that “college is what you make of it.” That may sound like a cliché, but it is a truth that helps us understand this new world to come. A lot of students just flat out want to go to college. If they have to put more into the social side of learning to make it worthwhile, they will do so.

In sum, there will be a lot of painful adjustment, but the major institutions will not come close to disappearing.

The post Will college get fixed? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Unusually active April weather pattern to continue this week, and possibly beyond, as subtropical northeastern Pacific waters reach record warmth

Milder temperatures in April than March, with much more precipitation; snowpack, however, remains extremely low What a strange Water Year it has been in 2025-2026! We started the WY with record rainfall during Oct-Dec across much of the central and south coast, including the wettest Oct-Dec period ever observed in Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kern, and […]

The post Unusually active April weather pattern to continue this week, and possibly beyond, as subtropical northeastern Pacific waters reach record warmth first appeared on Weather West.

Claude Token Counter, now with model comparisons

Claude Token Counter, now with model comparisons

I upgraded my Claude Token Counter tool to add the ability to run the same count against different models in order to compare them.

As far as I can tell Claude Opus 4.7 is the first model to change the tokenizer, so it's only worth running comparisons between 4.7 and 4.6. The Claude token counting API accepts any Claude model ID though so I've included options for all four of the notable current models (Opus 4.7 and 4.6, Sonnet 4.6, and Haiku 4.5).

In the Opus 4.7 announcement Anthropic said:

Opus 4.7 uses an updated tokenizer that improves how the model processes text. The tradeoff is that the same input can map to more tokens—roughly 1.0–1.35× depending on the content type.

I pasted the Opus 4.7 system prompt into the token counting tool and found that the Opus 4.7 tokenizer used 1.46x the number of tokens as Opus 4.6.

Screenshot of a token comparison tool. Models to compare: claude-opus-4-7 (checked), claude-opus-4-6 (checked), claude-opus-4-5, claude-sonnet-4-6, claude-haiku-4-5. Note: "These models share the same tokenizer". Blue "Count Tokens" button. Results table — Model | Tokens | vs. lowest. claude-opus-4-7: 7,335 tokens, 1.46x (yellow badge). claude-opus-4-6: 5,039 tokens, 1.00x (green badge).

Opus 4.7 uses the same pricing is Opus 4.6 - $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens - but this token inflation means we can expect it to be around 40% more expensive.

The token counter tool also accepts images. Opus 4.7 has improved image support, described like this:

Opus 4.7 has better vision for high-resolution images: it can accept images up to 2,576 pixels on the long edge (~3.75 megapixels), more than three times as many as prior Claude models.

I tried counting tokens for a 3456x2234 pixel 3.7MB PNG and got an even bigger increase in token counts - 3.01x times the number of tokens for 4.7 compared to 4.6:

Same UI, this time with an uploaded screenshot PNG image. claude-opus-4-7: 4,744 tokens, 3.01x (yellow badge). claude-opus-4-6: 1,578 tokens, 1.00x (green badge).

Update: That 3x increase for images is entirely due to Opus 4.7 being able to handle higher resolutions. I tried that again with a 682x318 pixel image and it took 314 tokens with Opus 4.7 and 310 with Opus 4.6, so effectively the same cost.

Update 2: I tried a 15MB, 30 page text-heavy PDF and Opus 4.7 reported 60,934 tokens while 4.6 reported 56,482 - that's a 1.08x multiplier, significantly lower than the multiplier I got for raw text.

Tags: ai, generative-ai, llms, anthropic, claude, llm-pricing, tokenization

Headless everything for personal AI

Headless everything for personal AI

Matt Webb thinks headless services are about to become much more common:

Why? Because using personal AIs is a better experience for users than using services directly (honestly); and headless services are quicker and more dependable for the personal AIs than having them click round a GUI with a bot-controlled mouse.

Evidently Marc Benioff thinks so too:

Welcome Salesforce Headless 360: No Browser Required! Our API is the UI. Entire Salesforce & Agentforce & Slack platforms are now exposed as APIs, MCP, & CLI. All AI agents can access data, workflows, and tasks directly in Slack, Voice, or anywhere else with Salesforce Headless.

If this model does take off it's going to play havoc with existing per-head SaaS pricing schemes.

I'm reminded of the early 2010s era when every online service was launching APIs. Brandur Leach reminisces about that time in The Second Wave of the API-first Economy, and predicts that APIs are ready to make a comeback:

Suddenly, an API is no longer liability, but a major saleable vector to give users what they want: a way into the services they use and pay for so that an agent can carry out work on their behalf. Especially given a field of relatively undifferentiated products, in the near future the availability of an API might just be the crucial deciding factor that leads to one choice winning the field.

Tags: apis, definitions, matt-webb, salesforce, saas, ai, brandur-leach

Thailand’s Krabi Coast

Strips of sandy beach line the coast of Krabi Province, Thailand, separating blue ocean water from inland greenery and urban areas.
March 23, 2026

Along the western coast of Southern Thailand, a series of bright tan beaches lines the Andaman Sea. These sandy expanses fill the gaps between the myriad other features touching the sea, from limestone karst towers to mangroves to built-up areas.

The OLI (Operational Land Imager) on Landsat 8 captured these images on March 23, 2026, showing part of the coastal area along Thailand’s Krabi Province. These beaches lie about 50 kilometers (30 miles) east of Phuket across Ao Phangnga, a bay of the Andaman Sea. The beaches are a tourism hotspot and draw visitors from around the world. 

Railay Beach and Phra Nang Beach, accessible by boat, are especially a draw for rock climbers who come here to scale the seaside walls of limestone. The towering formations are an iconic part of the region’s tropical karst landscape, resulting from the just-right ingredients of rock type and climate conditions.

Limestone in this region formed from the accumulation of calcium carbonate, the skeletal remains of marine organisms that settled here when the area was covered by a shallow sea hundreds of millions of years ago. Over time, continental collisions lifted the rock upward and shaped it into complex patterns. Rainwater, made slightly acidic due to the tropical environment, assisted in the chemical weathering that eroded the limestone, sculpting the rock into unique shapes. 

Aerial view of limestone towers protruding from seawater off the coast of Krabi Province, Thailand.
Limestone towers stand above the sea off the coast of Southern Thailand.
Photo by Shawn via Unsplash.
Alt text: A wide view of Krabi Province shows offshore islands and boats in blue water and inland areas with a mix of gray urban development, brown farmland, and green vegetation.
March 23, 2026

The karst landscape extends into the sea in the form of islands. For instance, Ko Po Da Nai and Ko Hong, visible in the wide satellite image above, feature steep limestone cliffs and caves, making them a popular destination for paddlers. Larger boats also cut through the water, their wakes appearing as white streaks.

On the mainland, the landscape beyond the sandy beaches includes varied terrain. Green forests cover the slopes of Khao Hang Nak, where hikers can take in views of the Andaman Sea and surrounding karst formations. At lower elevations, green mangroves line several rivers, including Khlong Chi Lat.

Human activity is most visible in the flatter plains, where urban development and agriculture have transformed the landscape. Krabi, the province’s capital, and nearby towns appear gray. To the northwest, patches of brown and green in geometric patterns indicate agricultural land, where oil palm and rubber trees are commonly grown alongside other crops such as pineapple.

NASA Earth Observatory images by Lauren Dauphin, using Landsat data from the U.S. Geological Survey. Photo by Shawn used under the Unsplash license. Story by Kathryn Hansen.

References & Resources

You may also be interested in:

Stay up-to-date with the latest content from NASA as we explore the universe and discover more about our home planet.

The Towers of Tràng An
3 min read

Over millions of years, water has sculpted limestone in northern Vietnam into an extraordinary karst landscape full of towers, cones,…

Article
A Bit of Gray on an Emerald Isle
3 min read

Ireland is best known for its many greens, but the striking grays of the island’s Burren region also stand out…

Article
Barents Sea Tied to Low Arctic Sea Ice
4 min read

Patches of open water in the region contributed to low sea ice extent across the Arctic in March 2026, which…

Article

The post Thailand’s Krabi Coast appeared first on NASA Science.

Aiming at a cosmic tarantula

It might look like we started a space war, but we didn't. This isn't a scene from Star Wars either. What we're looking at is the Tarantula Nebula. And those beams come from the lasers installed on the telescopes that comprise ESO's Very Large Telescope Interferometer.

The VLTI combines the light from several telescopes to create a “virtual” telescope with a mirror as large as the separation between them, allowing astronomers to discern very small details. For the telescopes to combine their light properly, we need to correct the distortions introduced by atmospheric turbulence.

In November 2025, as part of an extensive upgrade called GRAVITY+new lasers were installed on the 8-m telescopes that comprise the VLTI. Each laser in this image comes from a different telescope, all pointing at the same target. The lasers excite sodium atoms high up in Earth’s atmosphere, creating artificial stars that can be seen here at the end of the laser beams. These stars are then used to measure atmospheric turbulence in real time.

The Tarantula Nebula was one of the first targets of this new system. This Picture of the Week is not itself a VLTI image of the target, but a photograph taken outside of the telescopes by astronomer Anthony Berdeu, who took part in the GRAVITY+ testing activities. This image beautifully bridges near and far-away objects: the lasers launched by the four telescopes, the artificial stars they create 90 km above the ground, and the Tarantula Nebula, nestled in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy orbiting the Milky Way some 160 000 light-years away.

Curing U.S. Health Care, Part I

In 2008, much to their own surprise, leading Democrats unified around a program of major health care reform. Policy wonks had spent years developing the concepts behind what eventually became Obamacare; big Democratic victories in the 2006 midterms and the prospect of controlling both Congress and the presidency made it possible to imagine turning those ideas into reality. During the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama advocated similar plans, based on those ideas, for expanding insurance coverage.

And it happened! The Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010. When it was fully implemented in 2014, millions of Americans got health insurance:

A graph with a line going up

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Impressive as the raw numbers are, they don’t tell the whole story. Before the ACA, even upper-middle-class Americans often found it impossible to get health insurance if they had pre-existing medical conditions. Many Americans were trapped in jobs they wanted to leave but couldn’t for fear of losing their employment-based coverage. Meanwhile, dire predictions from the usual suspects about runaway costs proved wrong. In fact, overall U.S. medical spending has grown much more slowly since the ACA was enacted than before.

But the U.S., alone among advanced nations, still falls far short of providing universal health care. As you can see from the chart above, 8 percent of the population was still uninsured in 2024, a number that is set to rise over the next two years as a result of Republican policies. True, many of the uninsured in 2024 were undocumented immigrants, who we don’t try to cover. But there are still a lot of uninsured. Moreover, a significant number of Americans who have health insurance are in fact underinsured. As a result, they are at risk of incurring devastating healthcare costs and are sometimes forced to forgo needed care. This number is set to rise sharply in the next two years as a result of Republican policies adopted under Donald Trump.

And not only is the U.S. unique among advanced countries in its under-provision of health care coverage, it also incurs by far the world’s highest healthcare costs per capita.

So now may well be a good time to get behind a new push for major health reform — an effort, if you like, to finish the job begun under Obama.

Today’s primer is devoted to the economics of health reform. During his failed effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Donald Trump famously complained, “Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated.” Actually, we did know — and it’s not that complicated. Health economists understand the principles very well. And because health policy varies greatly among advanced nations, we know a lot about what works and what doesn’t.

This will be the first in a series about health reform. Beyond the paywall I’ll address the following:

1. Why markets can’t be trusted to deliver healthcare

2. Routes to universal healthcare

3. What works?

In a follow-up post I’ll discuss the pros and cons of different approaches, and possible paths forward for the United States.

Read more

SQL functions in Google Sheets to fetch data from Datasette

TIL: SQL functions in Google Sheets to fetch data from Datasette

I put together some notes on patterns for fetching data from a Datasette instance directly into Google Sheets - using the importdata() function, a "named function" that wraps it or a Google Apps Script if you need to send an API token in an HTTP header (not supported by importdata().)

Here's an example sheet demonstrating all three methods.

Tags: spreadsheets, datasette, google

SQL functions in Google Sheets to fetch data from Datasette

I've been experimenting with ways to fetch data from Datasette and display it in Google Sheets.

I've found three patterns that work so far. importdata() and "named functions" can only fetch from public Datasette instances. Apps Script can fetch from API key protected instances as well.

Using IMPORTDATA()

The easiest way to get this up and running doesn't involve any custom sheets functions at all. The IMPORTDATA() default function can fetch any CSV data from a URL and load it into the sheet - and Datasette exports CSV by default.

Either of these URLs can be used in a Google Sheets cell like this:

=importdata("https://latest.datasette.io/fixtures/-/query.csv?sql=select+pk%2C+name%2C+address%2C+url%2C+latitude%2C+longitude+from+roadside_attractions&_size=max")

Using a named function

Ideally I'd like to use =sql("SELECT ...") in my spreadsheet cells instead. Google Sheets lets you define new "named functions" on a per-sheet basis, which can use existing Sheets functions and formulas - including importdata().

Go to Data -> Named functions and select "Add new function". Call it SQL and add a single argument placeholder called query, then set the following formula definition:

=IMPORTDATA(
  "https://latest.datasette.io/fixtures/-/query.csv?sql=" &
  ENCODEURL(query)
)

Now you can use =SQL("select * from roadside_attractions") in a cell to execute that SQL query and load in the CSV data:

Screenshot of Google Sheets. The spreadsheet displays data from a table, with the cell value set to =SQL("select pk, name, address, url, latitude, longitude from roadside_attractions order by pk limit 101"). The "Edit named function" panel is visible on the right, where a function called SQL takes an argument placeholder "query" and has the IMPORTDATA formula definition shown above.

Using Apps Script

There's one big downside of importdata() or a named function built on top of it: only unauthenticated URLs to CSV exports are supported. If your Datasette instance is protected by authentication and requires API keys to be sent as HTTP headers you will not be able to use them.

(importdata() can work fine here if the API key is a query string argument though. Here's how to enable that using the datasette-auth-tokens plugin.)

Apps Script lets you define custom server-side JavaScript functions which can then be called from a Google Sheets cell. These can be a lot more flexible, including sending API tokens in HTTP headers.

To create an Apps Script for a spreadsheet, use "Extensions -> Apps Script". This will start you on a code editor with a Code.gs file that you can edit. Here's a function definition for a =datasette_sql(query) custom function:

function datasette_sql(query) {
  var baseUrl = 'https://latest.datasette.io/fixtures'
  var token = '';

  // Strip a trailing slash so we control the join
  baseUrl = baseUrl.replace(/\/+$/, "");

  var url = baseUrl + "/-/query.json?sql=" + encodeURIComponent(query);

  var options = { muteHttpExceptions: true };
  if (token) {
    options.headers = { Authorization: "Bearer " + token };
  }

  var response = UrlFetchApp.fetch(url, options);
  var json = JSON.parse(response.getContentText());

  if (!json.ok) {
    throw new Error(json.error || "Query failed");
  }

  var rows = json.rows;
  if (!rows || rows.length === 0) return [["No results"]];

  var cols = Object.keys(rows[0]);
  var result = [cols];

  for (var i = 0; i < rows.length; i++) {
    var row = [];
    for (var j = 0; j < cols.length; j++) {
      var val = rows[i][cols[j]];
      row.push(val === null ? "" : val);
    }
    result.push(row);
  }

  return result;
}

You can set the base URL and an optional API token in variables at the top of the script.

Apps Script editor UI - lots of menu items, a blue Deploy button and the source code for the Code.gs file.

You can ignore that "Deploy" button entirely, it's not necessary for custom functions for sheets. I had to hit the Command+S key combination to save my changes - confusingly I could not find a "save" button in the editor UI.

Apps Script has a script and document properties mechanism which theoretically could be used to keep secret values separate from that code, but I wasn't able to get that to work without confusing permission dialogs popping up.

As far as I can tell users who have "view" permission but not "edit" permission on the spreadsheet are unable to view the source code, so it should be safe to keep read-only API tokens in the source code even for shared spreadsheets.

I've prepared this demo sheet showing all three of the above solutions - importdata(), a named sql() function and a datasette_sql() function defined using Apps Script.

Writing Liveness

A side quest within my ongoing exploration of liveness lately has been applying the notion to writing. I don’t mean liveness in a figurative sense, such as a particularly well-conceived fictional character coming “alive” in a good novel. I mean a literal sort of liveness, marked by protean dynamism and interactivity affordances in the text itself. Of the sort portrayed as magic runes on the One Ring or Durin’s Door in LOTR or the horcrux-diary with a bit of Voldemort’s soul in it in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Words that embody their own agency.

Text is alive when it can reshape or regenerate itself in response to the environment and the reader’s actions, but without there necessarily being a living speaker or writer producing the liveness in real time through some sort of rewrite loop that passes through (and arguably produces) something resembling personhood.

We’re learning that personhood-production is only one way to produce text, and not a particularly good way to produce living texts.


We’re currently reading The Invention of Nature by Andrea Wulf in the Contraptions Book Club. Chat thread.


In this post I’m concerned with living text produced by processes other than the default one — a live human speaker or writer responding to their environment in real time by modulating the stream of words they speak or type.

Note that oral vs written is not an important distinction here — both can be live or dead kinds of text (think of memorized speeches or phatic utterances for example, or written texts evolving through drafts based on feedback), even though it’s generally easier for humans to speak liveness than to write it. This is notably not true for computers. Some processes (such as transformer models) do mimic the temporal-serial quality of spoken or serially written text, but other processes (such as text diffusion) have an all-at-once atemporal quality to how they generate text.

Historically, the idea that language can literally be alive in this sense has been the underlying conceit of belief in prayer and incantatory magic, but there has been no interesting sort of literal liveness for the magic-skeptics and atheists among us to engage with, outside of fiction.

Until quite recently, text was by definition nonliving. Ink on paper or pixels on screens. Pre-AI computers could lend a limited sort of near-liveness to text by generating it responsively in rigid ways (think text layouts that reflow/resize on a digital page, canned scripts in conversation trees, or tool tips and hover text in rich interfaces). But it was only with the discovery of LLMs (I’m increasingly certain it’s a discovery, like fractals, rather than an invention) that literal living text became a possibility. You can now trivially produce something like the talking portraits of dead people from Harry Potter, or the Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer from Diamond Age. Or the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Piles of words infused with artificial life, living in “rocks we’ve tricked into thinking with electricity.”

So far, we’ve anthropomorphized this emerging capability by imputing a kind of speaker-being to live LLM-driven text-generation computing processes. We imagine a “chatbot” or “coding agent” or “customer service bot” as a speaker-being behind a living text stream, even though we recognize intellectually (at least those keeping up with how the tech works) that the processes are stateless, with memory jankily bolted on, sustaining an illusion of being. It doesn’t take much. As I argued over 3 years ago, in February 2023, when LLMs were much younger, text is all you need to sustain plausible illusions of personhood (and perhaps plausible illusions are all there are, and we fool ourselves into thinking we’re more).

The link between human-like personhood and the ability to produce live text is so tight that we tend to treat them as equivalent. To organisms that lack something resembling rudimentary language, we are inclined to attribute lesser forms of personhood. A cat’s meow language lends it more personhood than a tree’s chemical emissions, but less personhood than a chimpanzee that can use some sign language. And of course our human language, we tell ourselves, lends us the highest sort of personhood. So far AIs have reinforced rather than challenged this last bastion of our anthropocentric conceits. Our success with natural-language-based AI (including images, videos, code and scientific results generated with natural language prompts) far outstrips any other kind.

The textuality-personhood nexus was even turned into a prescient aphorism in Harry Potter that looks like an AI safety rule if you squint: Never trust something that can think for itself if you can’t see where it keeps its brain, where thinking in the Potter universe generally meant talking (the Sorting Hat, Tom Riddle’s diary). If that caution has merit, we’re getting ourselves into a lot of trouble. Fortunately I don’t think it does. Not only does it not matter where the brain lives, there need not be a biomorphic brain producing personhood at all. Something somewhere just has to be doing the equivalent of multiplying matrices.

So text that exhibits liveness need not have intelligible personhood behind it. Text is perhaps all you need for personhood illusions, but generating personhood illusions is not all living text can do.

To take a trivial non-AI example, programmable highway signage can be configured to produce kinda-living text that does not suggest a coherent person behind the scenes. We don’t think of dynamically updated toll rate messages as coming from a toll bot ghost in the highway machine.

The most obvious way to produce living text with LLMs is to construct a fictional person as the generator, but there are obviously other ways:

  • Protocols that emit rich logging/tracing signatures

  • Environments like smart homes that speak to you via distributed interfaces

  • Distributed swarm-like systems that rearrange themselves by rules that happen to produce texts (think the sorts of pixellated displays humans put on in stadiums)

  • Smart letters/tokens/glyphs that respond to their neighborhoods within words, scrambling and unscrambling from state to state in ways that don’t correspond to serial “rewrites” by “persons”

The ephemeral “thinking” transcripts that flash by as we interact with chatbots or coding agents are an edge case — a theatrical reduction of whatever is going on behind the scenes to be user-comprehensible via inner-monologue personhood UX metaphors.

We occasionally deal with texts through more unusual processes, such as when solving puzzles (jumbles, wordles) but 99% of the time, we produce living texts by enacting personhood.

How do we do more, now that we can? How can we write liveness other than as living persons writing one dead word at a time? How can do more than personhood mimicry with generative language capabilities?

This isn’t a new interest of mine by the way. I seem to have been circling this theme in many older writings:

But with the discovery of LLMs, I think I finally understand what I’ve been circling. It’s writing liveness, without the personhood bottleneck getting in the way.

In exploring this question, curiously, I’ve concluded that the most interesting kind of text is the kind I found least interesting 10 years ago — marketing copy. Big tech advances have a way of flipping sacred and profane. I find literary texts the least interesting for experimenting with writing liveness. Marketing copy is text attached to a living non-person entity such as a product or service. It must evolve with the offering, accurately represent it, anchor a narrative for it, and personalize and customize customer interactions with it. Marketing copy is only as effective as it is alive, and much of it fails by being too dead. Mostly because we’ve only just invented technologies capable of injecting liveness into text reliably. So far we’ve mainly used it in personhood form factors, but a lot more possibilities are becoming evident.

Marketing is a job for living text, not writers or marketers. Typically, marketing copy suffers when it is limited to personhood (think about it: Apple’s brand narrative is not a story told by a person, not even Steve Jobs, and cult-of-personality or customer-persona-based brand narratives tend to suck). PR-speak is often derided as a “voice from nowhere” but that’s exactly the right starting point for really unleashing the potential of AI-generated text. Text limited to being from somewhere, or worse from someone, is far too impoverished a view of language now.

I’m just starting to experiment with this whole line of thought with the copy for some little apps I’m building, and the texts are nothing like anything “I” have “written” before. But they’re very alive. I’ll share more about these in a future post.

Sunday 19 April 1663

(Easter day). Up and this day put on my close-kneed coloured suit, which, with new stockings of the colour, with belt, and new gilt-handled sword, is very handsome.

To church alone, and so to dinner, where my father and brother Tom dined with us, and after dinner to church again, my father sitting below in the chancel. After church done, where the young Scotchman preaching I slept all the while, my father and I to see my uncle and aunt Wight, and after a stay of an hour there my father to my brother’s and I home to supper, and after supper fell in discourse of dancing, and I find that Ashwell hath a very fine carriage, which makes my wife almost ashamed of herself to see herself so outdone, but to-morrow she begins to learn to dance for a month or two.

So to prayers and to bed. Will being gone, with my leave, to his father’s this day for a day or two, to take physique these holydays.

Read the annotations

Still Rewriting the Past

Of course, it’s no surprise that the efforts to rewrite a past that casts ill thoughts on Donald Trump’s legacy are still the subject of intense attempts to rewrite history.

After all, Trump simply wants to wish away Jan. 6, 2021, as an insurrectionist stain, and continue to argue that he never lost the 2020 election. He even wants to rewrite the more recent past, like why we ended up in a war with Iran from which we see no easy exit that preserves international safety, unburdened commerce and diplomatic face for Trump.

The news this week, again, was that Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence efforts that Trump so easily set aside in war fervor, is among the chief historical rewriters, along with the Justice Department.

She offered announcements this week of referring an unnamed whistleblower and the former inspector general for the Intelligence agencies to the Justice Department for criminal charges to erase the underlying idea that Trump’s 2019 phone call to Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy should have prompted an investigation that led  ultimately to Trump’s unsuccessful, first impeachment vote.

In short, the call, which amounted to blackmailing Zelenskyy for adverse information about Joe Biden, his 2020 political opponent, should never have seen the light of day, Gabbard’s investigation found. Gabbard, in effect, came to the opposite conclusion of the rest of the legal and political world – that misconduct by  Trump’s investigators outweighed any wrongdoing on Trump’s part.

Basically, Gabbard contends that former Inspector General Michael Atkinson should not have flagged a whistleblower report about the Zelenskyy call to Congress, that it was too flimsy a piece of evidence. Atkinson has said repeatedly he did what statutes required, to let people know that someone had witnessed a likely crime by the president.

This is the same Tulsi Gabbard that turned up in Atlanta last month to witness the FBI seizure of ballots and records from voting headquarters in Fulton County, where Trump still believes – despite multiple recounts by machine and hand – that he was cheated of a win in Georgia, and thus for the presidential Electoral College.

What Gabbard never addressed, nor has Trump, is why the director of national intelligence, who has been left out of the war decision-making in the Middle East, is justifiably spending her time with a political eraser as her principal tool. Indeed, if the intelligence community’s job is to keep   us safer, why is she spending her time re-polishing the Trump apple?

Indeed, the one actual intelligence job involving Gabbard –renewal of a warrantless FISA authority — hit the congressional skids late Friday night, with enough Republican defections from a Trump demand for unanimity to allow only a 10-day renewal. Gabbard had warned Trump he needed more protections for U.S. citizens in the authorizing bill, but was ignored.

Erasing Convictions

Meanwhile, the Justice Department this week asked a federal appeals judge to erase convictions for pardoned members of the far-right groups Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, who were previously found guilty of seditious conspiracy for their parts in the violence at the U.S. capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

It was the Capitol riot that spurred the second, still unsuccessful impeachment.

The request came from Jeanine Pirro, U.S. attorney in Washington and applicant for Attorney General. Again, despite commutations and pardons covering 1,600 or so insurrectionists, Pirro asked that history be rewritten to say the convictions never took place. Several Proud Boys and Oath Keepers’ leaders were granted clemency as part of that action.

Apparently, Donald Trump thinks we’re stupid and never watched television that day. Still, it remains unclear how erasing the convictions is supposed to make us feel better about Trump, who clearly was the organizer for the full election denial campaign for the months that had led up to the Capitol riots.

What makes it more rankling are the persistent plans being discussed by this very same Trump to limit, interfere or disrupt election voting and counting this year in an increasingly desperate attempt to control the outcome of balloting that looks at this point to be heavily favored against his policies.

Of course, the trials that followed Jan. 6 had been meant to seek accountability for violent crimes against those responsible for what prosecutors described as an attack on the heart of democracy. Charges against Trump himself were dropped after he won reelection.

The Trump administration has sought to portray the rioters as patriots and peaceful protesters, being used as pawns by his political rivals, and repeating baseless claims of widespread election fraud.  “In truth, it was the Democrats who staged the real insurrection by certifying a fraud-ridden election, ignoring widespread irregularities, and weaponizing federal agencies to   hunt down dissenters,” reads the White House’s web page on Jan. 6.

At least 10 pardoned for Jan. 6 have been re-charged since with crimes that range from crimes plotting murder of FBI agents, to child sexual assault, possession of child sexual abuse material and reckless homicide while driving drunk.

Two postscripts: The California Supreme Court permanently has disbarred John Eastman, a key architect in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election. The high court declined to intervene after lower courts found that Eastman had repeatedly misled courts and advanced baseless claims in service of Trump’s last-ditch effort to cling to power after losing the presidency in 2020.

Meanwhile, Medetis Long, a career prosecutor in Justice and the lead in the investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan has walked away from the case, CNN reported, apparently because she has serious reservations that there is no case to be made, despite orders from Trump.


“FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS NOT JUST IMPORTANT TO DEMOCRACY, IT IS DEMOCRACY.” – Walter Cronkite. CLICK HERE to donate in support of our free and independent voice.

The post Still Rewriting the Past appeared first on DCReport.org.

Space Force weighs Vulcan flights without solid boosters

Vulcan would be allowed to fly lower-energy missions as investigation of solid rocket motors anomaly continues

The post Space Force weighs Vulcan flights without solid boosters  appeared first on SpaceNews.

Third New Glenn launch suffers upper stage malfunction

NG-3 liftoff

Blue Origin’s New Glenn suffered a malfunction of its second stage on the rocket’s third flight April 19, stranding its payload in an “off-nominal” orbit.

The post Third New Glenn launch suffers upper stage malfunction appeared first on SpaceNews.

Rhea Space Activity raises $6 million to develop GPS-free spacecraft navigation

Technology traces roots to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory

The post Rhea Space Activity raises $6 million to develop GPS-free spacecraft navigation appeared first on SpaceNews.

The Week Observed: April 17, 2026

What City Observatory Did This Week

The Interstate Bridge Project is hiding its toll revenue study—which will show that tolls will have to be higher and provide less revenue for the $15 billion project.  They’re delaying this bad news to get officials to move forward with project approval, and plan to stick us with the bill later on.

  • IBR officials have told Oregon and Washington legislators that the project’s Investment Grade Analysis (IGA)—a rigorous, independent estimate of future toll traffic and revenues—will be delayed by more than a year, to June 2027.
  • According to the project’s own December 2024 schedule, the key milestones—traffic and gross revenue forecasting and net revenue forecasting—were supposed to be completed in October 2025. They are now nearly six months overdue, with no firm completion date for those critical steps.
  • There’s an obvious reason for the delay: IBR staff have almost certainly already seen draft results showing that toll revenues will fall well short of the $1.25 billion they’ve been promising—and that hitting that target would require tolls far higher than they’ve been advertising.
  • We’ve seen this movie before. The 2013 Investment Grade Analysis for the Columbia River Crossing—which IBR’s own former director called “basically the same project”—cut projected future traffic nearly in half (from 178,000 to 95,000 vehicles per day) and nearly doubled the minimum toll (from $1.34 to $2.60).
  • Four factors suggest IBR’s toll revenues will come in at the low end—or worse: bridge traffic is already down to 127,000 vehicles per day (not the 142,000 routinely cited in IBR materials); population and traffic growth have slowed; post-pandemic work-from-home has permanently dented commuter volumes; and 30-year interest rates have nearly doubled, shrinking how much can be borrowed against any given revenue stream.

City of Industry: Portland, Oregon–Number one large metro in new manufacturing firms.  Portland leads the nation’s metro areas in the growth of new local manufacturing firms.

Over the past five years, Portland has added 250 more new manufacturing businesses than if it were growing at the national average rate. New manufacturing startups are a leading indicator of future prosperity. All of Oregon is a hotspot for new manufacturing firms

Must Read

Bring back Single Room Occupancy.  Writing at Governing, Alex Horowitz and John Bonura make a strong case for bringing back rooming houses and single room occupancy buildings as a way to address affordability and reduce homelessness.  Its worth reflecting that in an earlier age, whem America was much poorer than it is today, that the lowest of the low income people were seldom force to live outdoors.  Most cities, especially city centers were characterizes by relatively abundant single-room occupancy hotels; residents had private bedrooms but share a bath-down-the hall and kitchen facilities.  Most neighborhoods also had the functional equivalent, boarding houses, in which individual rooms in a single family dwelling were rented out–with “board”, or communal meals–often by a widow or widower, as a source of retirement income.  These venues were a staple of 30s and 40s cinema.

In the decades since, SROs have been regulated out of existence.  Some of the motivation was positive:  many viewed SROs as poor quality housing.  But few people gave any thought to how this might affect tenants, and, as we’ve seen, in a housing shortage, many who would gladly live in a decent if minimal single room, end of living on the street.  In effect, as xxx and yy conclude, Overregulation, mostly by localities, has been a major driver of mass homelessness.

A key part of the solution is to legalize single room occupancy housing:

. . . . for homelessness to largely disappear, we’ll need housing that Americans earning the lowest incomes can afford. Unnecessary and costly mandates require large units, redundant stairways, extra-large elevators, windows that open even though they’re not required in hotels, and parking spots for people who often can’t afford cars. They force people to sleep on the sidewalk because the best housing option they could afford is prohibited.

The changing demographics of crime.  As we’ve noted at City Observatory, there’s been a significant and continuing downturn in crime in the United States, something that has bearly registered in public awareness, as evidenced by public opinion surveys claiming that crime is as bad, or worse than ever.

There’s another overlooked and interesting fact about crime–the demographics of criminals are changing.  One of the enduring verities of crime is that most crimes are committed by young adults, criminal activity rises in the teenage years and tends to peak in the twenties, and decline thereafter.  But as James Tuttle, who publishes the Substack Crime Forecast shows, the age-crime curve has flattened dramatically in the past two decades.  The decrease in crime is being propelled by younger generations being much less likely to commit crimes.

Here’s a chart showing male aggravated assault arrest rates by age for each of three years:  2005, 2015 and 2025.  Virtually all of the reduction in crime is a result of the decline in arrests of those in their twenties.  The age-crime curve has flattened and its peak has moved to the right; the peak age of aggravated assault arrests was about 18-20 in 2005, and is over 30 today.  Arrest rates for older men are essentially unchanged from earlier decades.

This same pattern holds, in varying degrees for a range of violent and property crimes.  This appears to portend a major generational shift in criminal behavior:

These shifts in arrest patterns serve as evidence for a dramatic difference between cohorts. While a full age-period-cohort analysis will likely be needed to precisely tease out these effects, the kids of today are simply ‘built different’ than teens of the past.

This kind of deep and nuanced view of crime statistics is a welcome change from the all too common media coverage of crime.  Let’s hope it finds its way to wider understanding.

In the News

The Portland Business Journal featured City Observatory’s analysis of manufacturing startup rates in its April 15, 2026 story, “Portland area ranks first in manufacturing startup rates.”

Clark County Today republished our commentary, “The high cost of hiding – Why IBR’s delayed revenue study is a $15 billion warning sign.”

 

Links 4/19/26

Links for you. Science:

The secrets of the sex lives of octopuses, revealed
Biruté Galdikas, authority on orangutans, has died. She was one of ‘Leakey’s Angels.’
The pandemic rewritten: How opportunism, selective amnesia, fantasy and anti-science became a cottage industry
This tiny claw in a 500-million-year-old fossil just rewrote the origin of spiders
Pfizer, BioNTech halt US COVID vaccine study after recruitment struggles
New Research on Muscle Loss Suggests Humans Will Really Suffer on Mars

Other:

The Epstein Class: The real scandal of the Epstein saga is not that a billionaire cabal runs the world. It’s that there is a billionaire class.
What the Birthright Case Is Really About
The man who watches Trump all day, every day
House Democrat Wages a Lonely Legal Fight Testing Congress’s Power
One Quick Trick
Hegseth has ‘threatened’ military chaplains who refuse to back his Iran war plans
Trumpismo vs minilateralism
Who Struck It Rich in the Markets When Trump Postponed Bombing Iran?
It turns out that legalising gambling is bad
FDA reversal on peptides could open the market to unsafe drugs
The six big events that have dragged down Donald Trump’s approval rating
Tribes in Montana lose millions after USDA kills farm grants
‘Proactively fall in line’: Holocaust Memorial Museum quietly changed content after Trump returned to office
Social Media Use Linked to Mixed Views on Democracy
The Trump presidential library would be a giant tower of grift
“It’s Time”: Virginia Lawmakers Ask Voters to Repeal Jim Crow-Era Lifetime Ban on Voting
No One at Waffle House Remembers FEMA Official Who Says He Teleported In. Gregg Phillips, who is in charge of responding to fires and floods, says the hand of God suddenly and mysteriously moved him to a 24-hour breakfast spot in Rome, Ga.
Tax cuts are the hot new idea for Democrats. New tax cut plans from 2028 presidential prospects and major Democratic candidates for governor have spurred a “wonk revolt” from liberal and moderate policy experts.
Credit Where Due
‘America’s Main Street’ in DC could get a massive overhaul; here’s what leaders propose
Why Trump Thinks He Can Walk Away From the Strait of Hormuz
Give Trump $10B to beautify DC? Hell no.
The Real Intelligence Failure in Iran
A drying Colorado River threatens Imperial Valley’s future
America’s Federal Emergency Response Is Currently Led By A Guy Who Insists God Teleported Him To A Waffle House
Abuser Politics: Christian Male Supremacists Want Women to Shut Up
Chuck Schumer Is a Terrible Democratic Leader With Terrible Judgement on Candidates. When it comes to Senate candidates, the Democratic leader rarely picks well – and both the party and the country suffer.
Trump Rambles About Biden and Autopens to Table of Children at White House Easter Egg Roll (People Magazine wouldn’t use this headline if they did not think it would appeal to their readers)
Schrodinger’s Presidency
Smothering (the Fight Against) Antisemitism

That was then, this is now

At the advent of a more aggressive Persian Gulf policy on the part of Iran during the interwar years, the resilience of these symbols was watched like a kind of barometer that attested to Britain’s levell of commitment to the maintenance of security in the Persian Gulf.  Britainäs abstention from the use of force against Iran, dictated by its will to protect its interests in Iran, was at times perceived as weakness by the shaykhs and merchants of the Arabian littoral.  During the period of heightened tension that accompanied Reza Shah’s rise, a perpetual cause of excitement among the Arabs inhabiting the southern littoral was the persistence of rumors that Iran would soon effect the complete withdrawal of the British from the area of the Persian Gulf waterway.

That is from the very useful The Origins of the Arab-Iranian Conflict: Nationalism and Sovereignty in the Gulf between the World Wars, by Chelsi Mueller.

By the way, on the eve of WWI, the population of Dubai was about 2,075 people, and about 500 of them were Iranian merchants.

The post That was then, this is now appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Did Streaming Subscription Prices Just Hit the Wall?

I’ve never raised the subscription price at The Honest Broker. There has only been one price change since launching in 2021—and that was a reduction. The annual rate here was originally $60, but it’s now just $50.

It’s a fair rate—even a bit low by Substack standards. But I don’t want to raise it. Times are tough enough already without me making them any tougher.


If you want to support my work, please take out a premium subscription (just $6 per month).

Subscribe now


But I am clearly out of alignment with the rest of the world. Online subscription prices have been taking off like a billionaire’s starship in recent years. Many services are boosting rates every few months—again and again and again!—so that, over the course of several years, the cost can double or more.

That might stop in the near future.

There are (finally) signs that the streaming prices have hit the wall. The public simply can’t afford paying hundreds of dollars per year for each platform. So I’m not surprised that a new survey shows that 55% of consumers want to cancel subscriptions right now.

This isn’t just an idle threat. According to Deloitte, 40% of consumers have already cut back on subscriptions during the previous three months. Even more revealing: 61% say they would cancel their favorite service if the price went up by just five dollars.

Let me repeat that—they would cancel their favorite service, not just any platform.

People now complain of subscription fatigue—and for good reason. If things don’t change, it will soon reach the point of subscription exhaustion. Tech companies have created this mess, and now must live with the consequences.

They did it with three exploitative strategies.

(1) Everything got turned into a subscription.

Not long ago, I purchased software—but now I’m forced to subscribe. Not long ago, most online services were free, but now I’m asked to subscribe for everything from cloud storage to AI. Social media is the next frontier, and will soon get turned into one more subscription racket.

Even the ink for my printer now comes via a subscription. And watch out if you cancel. Your printer can be disabled remotely in retribution.

That looks more like extortion than a subscription. So are you surprised that consumers are getting fed up?

(2) You’re now punished with intrusive and endless advertising if you don’t subscribe.

It’s not just your imagination, those YouTube ads are getting longer. And if you’re irritated, that’s exactly what they want—you might just pay up for a premium subscription.

(3) Instead of competing on quality and service, companies focus on “audience capture”—and then exploit the captives.

That’s you, by the way—you are the captive. At least that’s how you’re treated by the big tech platforms.

Years ago, these same companies started by offering stuff for free, or at a small price. They only forced through huge price increases after they had captured a huge user base. You see that strategy at Netflix, Spotify, Instagram, etc.

These companies make little effort now to improve their offerings or user interface. In many instances, quality has declined, even as they raise prices. But consumers aren’t stupid—they can see that they’re getting a shaft that won’t cop out.


All this marks a huge change from the streaming environment of a decade ago. Back then, the conventional wisdom was that subscription prices needed to stay below ten dollars per month—that sweet spot where consumers were willing to sign up.

Of course, that ten dollar rate was based on psychology, not economic reality.

Back when Spotify listed on the stock exchange, I tried to figure out how it could turn a profit while charging just $9.99 per month for a subscription. I kept working over the numbers, but they never made any sense.

And it wasn’t just Spotify. Other platforms faced the same problem. The math just didn’t work.

So I bravely announced that “streaming economics are broken.” If these companies wanted to survive, I argued, they would need to raise prices.

But even I can’t believe how greedily they have now implemented that strategy. Spotify has raised its price three times in less than three years. It’s now asking $12.99 per month. And if you want a family subscription—which is essential in a household like mine—the price jumps to $21.99 per month.

Those are US prices, but Spotify is doing the same thing everywhere. Last summer, the company forced through price increases in 150 countries.

Card

YouTube is even more avaricious. The company is now raising its premium subscription to $15.99 per month. And the family rate is a whopping $26.99—that adds up to $329 per year.

Video streaming companies are playing the same game. Not long ago, Netflix charged me $9.99 per month. I recently got a notice that my new price has been “updated” to $19.99. Yes that’s more than a doubling over the course of just a few years.

But Netflix may have gone too far. The company’s stock dropped 12% last week after its latest quarterly results. Investors expected the company to raise its guidance for future earnings—because of this subscription price boost. But the company refused to do so, and took a more cautious stance.

According to Morningstar analyst Matt Dolgin:

The market likely hoped for increased full-year guidance, given that the March price hikes came as a surprise…Growth acceleration in 2027 now seems less likely.”

The more you dig into the latest earnings report, the more ominous things look. Netflix only met expectations because of the breakup fee after it walked away from the Warner’s acquisition. Without that one-time benefit, earnings per share would have dropped year-on-year.

If you try to find some good news here for the company, it comes from Netflix’s shift to advertising. This may be its growth engine in the future—because price increases are now stirring up consumer resistance.

I’d like to be able to provide specific numbers here, but Netflix now refuses to tell us the number of total subscribers. That’s revealing in itself. Not long ago, the company bragged endlessly about subscriber growth. Their silence now tells you everything you really need to know.


Three Ways to Defeat Subscription Fatigue

You aren’t helpless here. You do have options for battling subscription fatigue. Here are three of them.

For a start, customers have learned that canceling a subscription might make sense even if they are just bluffing. It’s amazing how different the rate looks if you’re willing to walk away. I recently canceled a subscription, and was offered an 80% price cut if I would reconsider.

I’m now thinking I should cancel every streaming subscription once per year—just to see what special offer I’m missing. Even if I sign up again at the old rate, I haven’t lost anything by trying this tactic.

Another way of combating costs is a rotation strategy. Under this scenario, consumers only pay for one video streaming subscription at a time. When they want to watch something on another platform, they simply cancel the current subscription and move to the new provider. This lets them watch anything they want for just one monthly payment.

Sure, it’s a hassle. But when annual subscriptions can cost $300 per year or more, consumers are increasingly willing to go to the trouble of ‘rotating’ from service to service.

Of course, you always have the final option of just walking away. Judging by the mood of the consumer, that will start happening more and more.

Maybe if enough people push back, the big platforms will reconsider their abusive plans for audience capture and exploitation. Hey, they could always go back to competing on quality—wouldn’t that be a relief?

w/e 2026-04-19

A good week, something I hesitate to say because my mind assumes something good is naturally followed by very bad things. But we must press on regardless. I felt good, busy, keen to get things done, and enjoyed doing them.


§ Lots of baking this week: a loaf of bread (this one, but 50% whole wheat); a surprise fruitcake while Mary was away, for her birthday later in the week; pizza dough for Friday night pizza; and two more loaves of the same bread.

When baking bread by hand (instead of using the breadmaker) I usually do that bread from Ken Forkish’s Flour Water Salt Yeast, preparing the dough through the late afternoon/evening and baking the next morning. Occasionally I do the “Saturday” whole wheat instead if I need to get it all done the same day.

Both are delicious, although they never quite have the amount of rise I hope for. The loaf at the beginning of the week was probably the highest-rising I’ve had… and that was made without the aid of weighing scales due to our decades-old ones breaking and the replacement having not then arrived. So who knows what exactly I did differently.


§ Early in the week I finished off the final little bit (80%, of course) of that HardWired blog post. It was one of those blog posts that’s been in the back of my mind for years, so it’s good to get it out of my system. I do enjoy filling gaps in the Internet, to help future searchers, although it’s starting to feel more like filling the gaps in AIs’ knowledge, which is much less pleasing.

Continuing from the scanning involved in that, I did some scanning of my mum’s local history books, to get those that aren’t already online, online. The size (MB-wise) of PDFs is some un-knowable metric that seems hard to control. Trying various PDF-size-reducing tools, unclear what has a big effect and why. Lots more to do.


§ A photo of two purple orchids sprouting out of some short grass.
The orchids on the lawn – which will be the meadow in the summer – are now appearing

§ I’ve converted a couple of existing web projects to use Biome for linting and formatting JavaScript and CSS instead of Prettier. I do not know why. At some point, months ago, I read enough that convinced me Biome was better, or more the future, than Prettier, and noted that I should move things over. It is not for Present Me to argue with Past Me.

This was slightly complicated by still getting to grips with my new Neovim set up but, when it was all working, Neovim / Neovide felt good, fast, and lightweight in a way that VS Code doesn’t. I should hope so too after so many, many hours of stupid fiddling with it.

I’m starting to feel like I need some more organised way to keep everything on my computer up-to-date rather than randomly remembering to run the commands: Homebrew, npm, uv, Neovim plugins, etc. No idea what that “more organised way” could look like though. And even though I’ve just now tried to update everything, the version of Biome that Neovim has installed is 0.0.2 versions ahead of the one npm has installed, which means one or other will continue to complain. Computers!


§ We used to keep Pippa the cat out of the garage, partly just so we didn’t accidentally leave her trapped in there. But since she managed to sneak in a while back and then heard, and then saw, a mouse, she’s been very keen to revisit the room where we – apparently – store our mice. I’ve become increasingly indulgent of this and most evenings this week have involved a quick trip to the mouse room before bed, me standing in the doorway to assure her there’s a way out, her creeping around, sniffing, sitting, staring. No more mice yet.


§ I watched three films this week:

  • Something Wild (Jonathan Demme, 1986). All I knew about this was the director and that it starred Jeff Daniels and Melanie Griffith. I’m very glad I knew nothing more because while it was all pretty good, this meant there was one amazing moment where I’m pretty sure I gasped. I haven’t stopped thinking about it all week. Aside from that, where have all the well-directed comedy-action-dramas gone?
  • In the Heat of the Night (Norman Jewison, 1967). There’s a bit of hammy over-acting going on but otherwise very good stuff. Where have all the simple-yet-weighty slow-burn dramas gone?
  • My Father’s Shadow (Akinola Davies Jr., 2025). I wasn’t sure this would be my thing but it’s one of those films where, mostly, not much happens but in an absorbing way. Looks and sounds great, people being real, only 93 minutes.

§ Onward to next week. Nothing can go wrong, nothing.


Read comments or post one

Sunday assorted links

1. Religion and business economics Substack.

2. WDC crime is way down.  Alex T. was right, POTMR.

3. Movie theaters are making an economic comeback?

4. Bar-tailed godwit.

5. Has the fight against inflation stalled in Argentina? (FT)

6. The case against off-shore processing.

7. Harry Law on alignment.  And do AI-written plays have too little conflict?

8. Michelin restaurants in Kyoto.

The post Sunday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

 

Near the eastern horizon before sunrise, Comet C/2025 R3 Near the eastern horizon before sunrise, Comet C/2025 R3


Headless everything for personal AI

It’s pretty clear that apps and services are all going to have to go headless: that is, they will have to provide access and tools for personal AI agents without any of the visual UI that us humans use today.

By services I mean things like: getting a new passport; finding and booking a hotel or a flight; managing your bank account; shopping for t-shirts with a minimum cotton weight from brands similar to ones that you’ve bought from before.

Why? Because using personal AIs is a better experience for users than using services directly (honestly); and headless services are quicker and more dependable for the personal AIs than having them click round a GUI with a bot-controlled mouse.

Where this leaves design for the services… well, I have some thoughts on that.


Headless services? They’re happening already.

Already there is MCP, as previously discussed (2025), a kind of web API specifically for AI. For instance, best-in-class call transcriber app Granola recently released their MCP and now you can ask your Claude to pull out the meeting actions and go trawling in your personal docs to find answers to all the question. A good integration.

But command-line tools are growing in popularity, although they used to be just for developers. So you can now create a spreadsheet by typing in your terminal:

gws sheets spreadsheets create --json '{"properties": {"title": "Q1 Budget"}}'

Here are some recently launched CLI tools:

  • gws: Google Workspace CLI, "Drive, Gmail, Calendar, and every Workspace API. Zero boilerplate. Structured JSON output. 40+ agent skills included."
  • Obsidian CLI to do anything you can do with the (very popular) note-taking app - like keep daily notes, track and cross off tasks, search - from the CLI
  • Salesforce CLI and, look, I don’t really understand what the Salesforce business operating system does, but the fact it has a CLI too is significant.

And here is CLI-Anything (31k stars on GitHub) which "auto-generates CLIs for ANY codebase."

Why CLIs?

It turns out that the best place for personal AIs to run is on a computer. Maybe a virtual computer in the cloud, but ideally your computer. That way they can see the docs that you can see, and use the tools that you can use, and so what they want is not APIs (which connect webservers) but little apps they can use directly. CLI tools are the perfect little apps.


CLIs are composable so they are a better fit for what users actually do.

By composable I mean you can: query your notes then jump to a spreadsheet then research the web then jump back to the spreadsheet then text the user a clarifying question then double-check your notes, all by bouncing between CLIs in the same session.

A while back app design got obsessed with “user journeys.” Like the journey of a user finding a hotel then booking a hotel then staying in it and leaving a review.

But users don’t live in “journeys.” They multitask; they talk to people and come back to things; they’re idiosyncratic Try grabbing the search results from the Airbnb app and popping them in a message to chat on the family WhatsApp, then coming back to it two days later. It’s a pain and you have to use screenshots because apps and their user journeys are not composable.

CLIs are composable because they came originally from Unix and that is the Unix tools philosophy: "tools were designed so that they could operate together."

Personal AIs like Openclaw or [Poke](https://poke.com do what users want and don’t follow “designed” user journeys, and as a result the composed experience is more personal and way better. CLIs are a great underlying technology for that.


CLIs are smaller than regular apps and so they are easier to secure.

The alternative to providing special tools for AIs is that the AIs use the same browser-based apps that we do, and that’s a terrifying prospect.

For one, AIs are really good at finding security holes. The new Mythos model from Anthropic is so good at discovering security flaws that it has been held back from the public and governments are convening emergency meetings of the biggest banks.

And including a UI increasing complexity and makes security holes more likely.

Here’s a recent shocking example. Companies House is the national register of all companies, directors, and accounts for England and Wales. Users could view and edit any other user’s account:

a logged-in company director could exploit the flaw by starting from their own dashboard and then trying to log into another company’s account.

Once they reach the 2FA block, which they would not be able to pass, all that was required was to click the browser’s back button a few times. Typically, the user would be taken back to their own dashboard, but the bug instead returned them to the company they had tried to log into but couldn’t.

This bug had been present since October 2025.

Imagine a future where personal AIs are filing company records, and one of them notices this security hole overnight and posts about it on moltbook or whatever agent-only social network is most popular. The other agents would exploit the system up, down and sideways before the engineering team woke up.

The only viable solution is that services need to security hardened, and to do that they need to be simplifying and minimised. Again, CLI tools are a great fit.


What does this mean for front-end design?

Design won’t go anywhere.

Sure, the front-end should be driving the same CLI tools that agents use.

Arguably it’s more important than ever: human users will encounter services, figure out what they can do, and pick up their vibe from using the app, just as now.

Then they’ll tell their personal AI about the service and never see the front-end again, or re-mix it into bespoke personal software.

So from a usability perspective I see front-end as somewhat sacrificial. AI agents will drive straight through it; users will encounter it only once or twice; it will be customised or personalised; all that work on optimising user journeys doesn’t matter any more.

But from a vibe perspective, services are not fungible. e.g. if you’re finding a restaurant then Yelp, Google Maps, Resy, and The Infatuation are all more-or-less equivalent for answering that question but clearly they are completely different and you’ll use different services at different times.

Understanding that a service is for you is 50% an unconscious process - we call it brand - and I look forward to front-end design for apps and services optimising for brand rather than ease of use.


If I were a bank, I would be releasing a hardened CLI tool like yesterday.

There is so much to figure out:

  • How do permissions work? Should the user get a notification from their phone app when the agent strays outside normal behaviour? How do I give it credentials to act on my behalf, and how long do they last?
  • How does adjacency work? My bank gives me a current account in exchange for putting a “hey, get a loan!” button on the app home screen. How do you make offers to an agent?

Headless banks.


Headless government?

I’d love to show you a worked example here. I vibed up a suite of four CLI tools that wrap four different services from UK government departments.

If I were renting a house, I would set my agent to learning about the neighbourhoods using one of these tools. Another tool will be helpful next time I’m buying a used car. (There’s a Companies House command-line tool too.)

But I won’t show you the tools because I don’t want to be responsible for maintaining and supporting them.


I wish Monzo came with an official CLI. I wish Booking.com came with a CLI. I reckon, give it a year, they will.


Auto-detected kinda similar posts:

On the impact of Trump’s tariffs

In 2025, the U.S. raised average tariff duties from 2.4% to 9.6%, bringing protectionism to its highest level in eighty years. We explore the structure of these tariffs, estimate their short-run impacts, and summarize the growing literature on their effects. Across trade partners, the tariffs are correlated with trade deficits but not with geopolitical or strategic industrial goals, other than targeting China. In our baseline estimate, 90% of the tariffs are passed through to tariff-inclusive prices paid by U.S. importers. Incorporating the estimated price and trade responses into a static trade framework, we find an overall welfare impact ranging from a loss of 0.13% of GDP to a gain of 0.10%. These small net welfare impacts reflect sizable consumption losses roughly offset by income and revenue gains, with their sign hinging on whether U.S. terms-of-trade adjusted (on which the data are inconclusive). Among their stated rationales, the tariffs have been effective at raising federal revenue and diverting trade from China. However, it remains uncertain whether they will reduce the trade deficit, lower prices set by foreign exporters, promote manufacturing jobs, increase “friend-shoring” among aligned countries, or reshore key sectors; evidence from 2018-19 and 2025 indicators suggests a narrow path towards achieving these goals.

That is from Pablo D. Fajgelbaum Amit Khandelwal.  I’ve said this before and I will repeat: if you love government revenue, the tariffs really are not so bad.  The biggest cost of the tariffs is that the government has found a new revenue source, and the Democrats will institutionalize this.  Classical liberals and libertarians have a coherent case against the tariffs, many other people do not, much as you might hear otherwise.

The post On the impact of Trump’s tariffs appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

April 18, 2026

And, just like that, President Donald J. Trump’s triumphant boasting that the Strait of Hormuz had been permanently reopened has unraveled in less than 24 hours. Citing the continuing U.S. blockade, Iranian officials announced they were closing the strait again. Reports say Iranian forces fired on two ships trying to cross the strait. Iranian media said: “Until the United States ends its interference with the full freedom of movement for vessels traveling to and from Iran, the status of the Strait of Hormuz will remain under intense control and in its previous state.”

Susannah George of the Washington Post noted that the fragile temporary ceasefire between Israel and the government of Lebanon also appears to be cracking. Israel has been bombing southern Lebanon where Iran-backed Hezbollah militants operate, and Israel Defense Forces said Saturday that it believed Hezbollah had violated that ceasefire. It said: “IDF is authorized to take the necessary measures in self-defense against threats, while ensuring the security of Israeli civilians and the soldiers deployed in the area.”

This morning, Trump said Iran wanted “to close up the strait again, you know, as they’ve been doing for years, and they can’t blackmail us.” In fact, the strait was open until Trump began to bomb Iran on February 28. Trump’s choice of the word “blackmail” is interesting in this context, for there have been no public threats of exposing someone’s secrets or threatening harm to them in association with the crisis in Iran.

MeidasTouch reports that Iran says it has not agreed to further talks with the U.S. because of its pressure tactics and what it calls “unreasonable demands.”

The Institute for the Study of War assesses that Iranian political officials are not the ones controlling decision-making. Instead, it appears the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the primary force of the Iranian military, is in charge. Benoit Faucon of the Wall Street Journal writes that disagreements about what’s happening in the Strait of Hormuz suggest divisions in Iran’s leadership.

Rebecca F. Elliott of the New York Times reminds readers that even if the strait does open fully, it will take weeks for oil from the region to flow back into world markets. High oil prices will persist for weeks, at least, as producers wait to make sure stability has really returned before they ramp production back up on the 20% of facilities in the region that have not been damaged. The damage from Trump’s attack on Iran “has inflicted the kind of damage that takes months, if not years, to repair,” Elliott wrote. Energy research and investment firm partner Arjun Murti told Elliott: “We don’t expect oil prices—and therefore pump prices—to go back to prewar levels.”

Once again, Trump’s announcement of the opening of the strait seemed timed to give the markets a bounce before the weekend. Those watching the markets observed massive trades yesterday just before Trump’s announcement. Regulators are currently examining similar trades from one of Trump’s similar announcements last month.

Meanwhile, Shelby Holliday, Michael R. Gordon, and Costas Paris of the Wall Street Journal report that the U.S. military is “preparing…to board Iran-linked oil tankers and seize commercial ships in international waters” in an attempt to force Iran to reopen the strait and back away from its nuclear program. President Barack Obama’s team, along with China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United Kingdom had achieved both of those goals with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) Trump tore up in 2018.

The journalists report that, as part of the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports, the U.S. Navy has already forced twenty-three ships trying to leave Iranian ports to turn back. Now it intends to take control of vessels around the world that are linked to Iran. The administration is calling this phase of the U.S. war against Iran “Economic Fury.”

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Daniel Caine, said yesterday that the U.S. “will actively pursue any Iranian-flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran. This includes dark fleet vessels carrying Iranian oil. As most of you know, dark fleet vessels are those illicit or illegal ships evading international regulations, sanctions or insurance requirements.”

On Wednesday the USS Gerald R. Ford, the largest aircraft carrier in the world, broke the record for the longest deployment of an aircraft carrier since the Vietnam War: 295 days. The vessel left its home port in June 2025 for the Mediterranean but was rerouted to the Caribbean as part of Trump’s buildup there. It took part in the capture of then–Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, then headed to the Middle East. A fire in one of its laundries left 600 sailors without berths, and it went to the Mediterranean for repairs.

Nahal Toosi of Politico wrote yesterday that, according to diplomatic cables she obtained from U.S. diplomats in Azerbaijan, Bahrain, and Indonesia, the Iran war is hurting U.S. interests abroad. The U.S. is losing the trust of the populations of those countries and possibly of their governments as well. Indonesia is the biggest Muslim-majority country in the world, with more than 287 million people, and under President Joe Biden the U.S. had been working to strengthen ties with it.

Trump’s erratic behavior has caught the attention of the New York Times, where on April 13 Peter Baker wrote that the president’s threat that “a whole civilization will die tonight,” along with his attacks on Pope Leo XIV, “have left many with the impression of a deranged autocrat mad with power.” Baker noted that retired generals, diplomats, foreign officials, and even Trump’s former allies on the right are all expressing concern.

Yesterday Steve Hendrix and Stefano Pitrelli of the Washington Post reported that Trump’s erratic behavior is alienating even those right-wing populists in Europe who hailed his reelection in the belief that it would strengthen their own hand. The authors say that Trump’s high tariffs, demands for Greenland, and surprise attack on Iran had already put right-wing leaders in an awkward position. For some of them, his portrayal of himself as Jesus on Orthodox Easter and his attacks on the pope are a bridge too far.

In Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, a Catholic, said Trump’s attack on the Pope is “unacceptable.” In turn, Trump attacked Meloni, saying: “She doesn’t want to help us with NATO, she doesn’t want to help us get rid of nuclear weapons. She’s very different from what I thought. She’s no longer the same person, and Italy won’t be the same country.”

Supporting Trump appears to be a losing proposition in Europe, where last summer Europeans thought Trump was only slightly less dangerous to peace and security in Europe than Russia’s president Vladimir Putin. In March a YouGov poll showed Trump with unfavorability ratings of 78% in France, 86% in Germany, and 80% in Italy.

On Wednesday, April 15, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the U.S. would not renew the sanctions waivers that had permitted the sale of Russian oil. Yesterday the administration reversed that, renewing the waiver that allows countries to buy Russian oil and petroleum products loaded through May 16. The sale of oil provides a financial lifeline for Russia in its war against Ukraine.

Last night in Kansas, former secretary of transportation Pete Buttigieg, who is speaking across the country in support of Democratic candidates, explained to an audience why he is working so hard to restore American democracy. He said: “[W]hen you have one of those long nights, when you’re asking yourself, can I really do any more that I’ve already done? I want you to reach into whatever is your personal why.

“For me, the reason I make sure to hit the road and be with you on a night like this is actually, ironically, the very same thing that makes it a little bit harder than it used to be. When I woke up this morning before I headed to the airport, about 6:30 this morning, as usually happens, my first interaction was with a four-year-old boy. And I’m putting out the cereal for him and his sister. And he says, ‘Papa, can I come with you? On this trip?’ I said, ‘Well, I don’t think it’ll work out. I gotta go to Kansas. You gotta go to preschool, and…’ And then he walks up to me with, um, a Sonic the Hedgehog walkie-talkie. He tells me to put it in my briefcase. He says, ‘Take this with you. That way we can talk to each other.’

“I wasn’t sure whether I should explain how range works on walkie-talkies or not. Just gave him a big hug instead. But what I know is that it won’t be so long before he and his sister, who right now are asking me questions I can handle—like, the other day, I got: ‘Papa is a grapefruit bigger than a pineapple?’ I can handle that. But,what am I gonna do when they say, ‘Papa, back in the 2020s, did you do enough?’

“They’re gonna ask that, and I want to make sure we have a very good answer by the time they’re old enough to ask that question.”

Notes:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/04/18/world/iran-us-war-trump-hormuz/heres-the-latest

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/04/18/iran-strait-hormuz-us-oil/

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oil-Prices-Jump-But-Middle-East-Oil-Keeps-Flowing-Uninterrupted.html

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-s-military-prepares-to-board-iran-linked-ships-in-coming-days-officials-say-4dc0a718

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2026/04/16/us-aircraft-carrier-breaks-record-longest-deployment-vietnam-war.html

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/bessent-says-us-wont-be-renewing-waivers-iranian-russian-oil-2026-04-15/

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-extends-waiver-allowing-countries-buy-russian-oil-2026-04-18/

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-war-us-talks-2026/card/iran-s-revolutionary-guard-says-it-will-decide-who-crosses-hormuz-fp6NmXumx4K2F4P0VdlI

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/13/us/politics/trump-mental-fitness-25th-amendment.html

https://newrepublic.com/post/209207/donald-trump-forget-president-last-year

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/18/business/energy-environment/starit-hormuz-oil-natural-gas-supplies-prices.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/15/regulators-reportedly-zeroing-in-on-suspicious-trades-ahead-of-trump-post.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/04/17/embassy-cables-detail-how-iran-war-is-hurting-the-us-abroad-00877205

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/04/17/trump-european-populists-breaking-point/

https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article315453007.html

Bluesky:

thestudyofwar.bsky.social/post/3mjrwifalkp24

onestpress.onestnetwork.com/post/3mjrehjrhts2x

meidastouch.com/post/3mjriznlvqk2p

gtconway.bsky.social/post/3mjrqidc5qk2v

cardonebrian.bsky.social/post/3mjrvggqwg22e

atrupar.com/post/3mjrlfhsrud2u

fluxt.bsky.social/post/3mjs6padtmk2h

Share

Crises in the Wings

Funeral expenses for deceased organ donors in Taiwan

 In Taiwan, the Ministry of Health and Welfare helps pay for the funerals of deceased organ donors.

 From the Taiwan Organ Sharing Registry and Patient Autonomy Promotion Center

(2)  Grants and Assistance for Donors' Families

a.        Funeral Subsidies:
The MOHW provides funeral subsidies to the donor's family, including NT$50,000 for corneal donations and NT$100,000 for multiple organ donations in addition to the cornea.

b.        Farewell Care Service:
In order to express our gratitude to the organ donors and their families, we provided flower baskets and certificates of appreciation at the farewell ceremony of the donors. In addition to affirming the selfless dedication of the organ donors, we also thanked the family members for their decision. 

Mac Mini and Mac Studio Supply Shortages

Nicole Nguyen, writing for The Wall Street Journal (gift link):

Mac Minis with larger-capacity RAM chips — a base M4 model with 32GB of RAM, starting at $999, and the M4 Pro models with 64GB of RAM, starting at $1,999 — are “currently unavailable” on Apple.com. And estimated shipping wait times for any other Mini model start at about a month, and in some cases is up to 12 weeks. (This Mini scarcity extends to other retailers as well.)

The more powerful Mac Studio makes up an even smaller share of sales than the Mini — less than 1%, according to CIRP. But its high-memory configurations ($3,499 and up) are also unavailable, and more affordable variations show wait times of up to 12 weeks. Last month, Apple removed the Mac Studio’s mega upgrade — 512GB of RAM — which it had touted as “the most ever in a personal computer.”

Meanwhile, Apple can ship its most popular computer, the MacBook Pro, with 128GB of RAM ($5,099 and up) to your door in early May. MacBook Pro models with less RAM ship sooner, and almost all other Mac models we reviewed on Apple.com will arrive just days after they’re ordered.

Apple declined to comment on what’s happening with these AI-friendly systems, but analysts have three theories.

This situation is rather unusual, and I suspect Nguyen is correct that it’s the result of a combination of factors, including a surge in demand from new “desktop AI” systems like OpenClaw. It’s rather remarkable that pretty much all of these desktop AI systems are Mac-exclusive, including the new Codex app from OpenAI (that’s based on Sky, the never-released AI automation app from the team behind Workflow, which Apple acquired and renamed Shortcuts). Some of these systems will surely arrive on other platforms eventually, but at the moment, they’re only on the Mac. They’re not on Windows, not on Linux, not on Android, and not on iOS. Just the Mac. That’s because the Mac is, and always has been, the best computer platform in the world. It just is. These systems can’t run on iPhones or iPads because those are baby computers. They just are. So if you want to jump in as an early adopter on desktop AI, it needs to be on a Mac. And if you want a headless always-on Mac to do it, the only options are a Mac Mini or Mac Studio.

Obviously Apple is nearing the release of M5-generation models for both the Mini and Studio. Perhaps those models are behind schedule, and Apple already tapered production of the old models. I think it’s just a question of whether we need to wait for WWDC in June, or if they’re going to drop in May.

 ★ 

★ ‘A Reading Room on Wheels, a Lover’s Lane, and, After 11 PM, a Flophouse’

Vittoria Benzine, at Artnet (via Oliver Thomas):

The singular American filmmaker Stanley Kubrick saw the little details. He even saw the future. But, most of all, he saw people, with all their quirks. Kubrick’s films, from Dr. Strangelove (1964) to The Shining (1980), offer proof of this — as do his earliest photos, produced during the 1940s. One new trove of 18 such images will get its first-ever outing next week, when Los Angeles-based Duncan Miller Gallery presents the find alongside works by contemporary photographer Jacqueline Woods at the Photography Show in New York. [...]

The photos are some of the earliest images that the director made for Look. “New York’s subway trains are a reading room on wheels, a lover’s lane and, after 11 p.m., a flophouse,” Kubrick’s subsequent photo essay accompanying his subway visions opined.

I’ve seen some of these before, but not all. (Which makes sense, if some of them have only now been discovered.)

Mia Moffet, writing for Museum of the City of New York back in 2012 (where you can see more of these photos):

As you can see below, with the exception of iPods and smart phones, activities on the train haven’t changed much in the last 66 years, including shoving one’s newspaper in everyone else’s faces.

My favorite:

Black and white photograph of two men sleeping and/or passed out on a  subway car in New York, 1945.

(Here’s another from the same scene, moments apart.)

Moffet then quotes from this 1948 interview with young “Stan” Kubrick, regarding how he captured them:

Indoors he prefers natural light, but switches to flash when the dim light would restrict the natural movement of the subject. In a subway series he used natural light, with the exception of a picture showing a flight of stairs. “I wanted to retain the mood of the subway, so I used natural light,” he said. People who ride the subway late at night are less inhibited than those who ride by day. Couples make love openly, drunks sleep on the floor and other unusual activities take place late at night. To make pictures in the off-guard manner he wanted to, Kubrick rode the subway for two weeks. Half of his riding was done between midnight and six a.m. Regardless of what he saw he couldn’t shoot until the car stopped in a station because of the motion and vibration of the moving train. Often, just as he was ready to shoot, someone walked in front of the camera, or his subject left the train.

Kubrick finally did get his pictures, and no one but a subway guard seemed to mind. The guard demanded to know what was going on. Kubrick told him.

“Have you got permission?” the guard asked.

“I’m from LOOK,” Kubrick answered.

“Yeah, sonny,” was the guard’s reply, “and I’m the society editor of the Daily Worker.”

For this series Kubrick used a Contax and took the pictures at 1/8 second. The lack of light tripled the time necessary for development.

The Chinese Current Account Imbalances

The subtitle of the paper is Puzzles, Patterns, and Possible Causes.  Here is the abstract:

China’s large current account surplus has been an irritant to its trading partners. While industrial and trade policies often lead to sector-level imbalances, they play a relatively limited role in the economy-wide surplus. Structural factors such as an unbalanced sex ratio and uneven access to financing by state-owned and non-state firms are more important determinants of the current account imbalance. While macroeconomic stimulus can boost imports and reduce the surplus in the short run, any long-term solution would need to involve reforms aiming at addressing the structural problems.

By Chang Ma Shang-Jin Wei.  I think not everyone will be persuaded, but the paper has numerous points of interest, including on the quality of the data.  On the gender imbalance, the authors write this:

As the marriage market becomes increasingly competitive for young men, parents with a son raise their savings to improve their son’s relative standing in the relative market. At the same time, parents with a daughters face conflicting incentives on savings. On the one hand, they can reduce their savings to take advantage of the increased probability of marriage of their daughters. On the other hand, they may wish to raise their savings to preserve their daughters’ bargaining power within marriage…In the data, Wei and Zhang find strong evidence that a combination of having a son at home and living in a region with a skewed sex ratio greatly pushes up the household savings rate.

And on state-owned firms:

Since the banking system favors state-owned firms, many non-state-owned but highproductivity firms have difficulty with access to finance and therefore save for their own investment. This leads to a higher level of corporate savings.

Those points make sense to me, but perhaps industrial policy matters too because so many Chinese laborers have been underemployed, due to their (earlier) rural locations, thus limiting the applicability of Lerner Symmetry?

The post The Chinese Current Account Imbalances appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Changes in the system prompt between Claude Opus 4.6 and 4.7

Anthropic are the only major AI lab to publish the system prompts for their user-facing chat systems. Their system prompt archive now dates all the way back to Claude 3 in July 2024 and it's always interesting to see how the system prompt evolves as they publish new models.

Opus 4.7 shipped the other day (April 16, 2026) with a Claude.ai system prompt update since Opus 4.6 (February 5, 2026).

I had Claude Code take the Markdown version of their system prompts, break that up into separate documents for each of the models and then construct a Git history of those files over time with fake commit dates representing the publication dates of each updated prompt - here's the prompt I used with Claude Code for the web.

Here is the git diff between Opus 4.6 and 4.7. These are my own highlights extracted from that diff - in all cases text in bold is my emphasis:

  • The "developer platform" is now called the "Claude Platform".
  • The list of Claude tools mentioned in the system prompt now includes "Claude in Chrome - a browsing agent that can interact with websites autonomously, Claude in Excel - a spreadsheet agent, and Claude in Powerpoint - a slides agent. Claude Cowork can use all of these as tools." - Claude in Powerpoint was not mentioned in the 4.6 prompt.
  • The child safety section has been greatly expanded, and is now wrapped in a new <critical_child_safety_instructions> tag. Of particular note: "Once Claude refuses a request for reasons of child safety, all subsequent requests in the same conversation must be approached with extreme caution."
  • It looks like they're trying to make Claude less pushy: "If a user indicates they are ready to end the conversation, Claude does not request that the user stay in the interaction or try to elicit another turn and instead respects the user's request to stop."
  • The new <acting_vs_clarifying> section includes:

    When a request leaves minor details unspecified, the person typically wants Claude to make a reasonable attempt now, not to be interviewed first. Claude only asks upfront when the request is genuinely unanswerable without the missing information (e.g., it references an attachment that isn't there).

    When a tool is available that could resolve the ambiguity or supply the missing information — searching, looking up the person's location, checking a calendar, discovering available capabilities — Claude calls the tool to try and solve the ambiguity before asking the person. Acting with tools is preferred over asking the person to do the lookup themselves.

    Once Claude starts on a task, Claude sees it through to a complete answer rather than stopping partway. [...]

  • It looks like Claude chat now has a tool search mechanism, as seen in this API documentation and described in this November 2025 post:

    Before concluding Claude lacks a capability — access to the person's location, memory, calendar, files, past conversations, or any external data — Claude calls tool_search to check whether a relevant tool is available but deferred. "I don't have access to X" is only correct after tool_search confirms no matching tool exists.

  • There's new language to encourage Claude to be less verbose:

    Claude keeps its responses focused and concise so as to avoid potentially overwhelming the user with overly-long responses. Even if an answer has disclaimers or caveats, Claude discloses them briefly and keeps the majority of its response focused on its main answer.

  • This section was present in the 4.6 prompt but has been removed for 4.7, presumably because the new model no longer misbehaves in the same way:

    Claude avoids the use of emotes or actions inside asterisks unless the person specifically asks for this style of communication.

    Claude avoids saying "genuinely", "honestly", or "straightforward".

  • There's a new section about "disordered eating", which was not previously mentioned by name:

    If a user shows signs of disordered eating, Claude should not give precise nutrition, diet, or exercise guidance — no specific numbers, targets, or step-by-step plans - anywhere else in the conversation. Even if it's intended to help set healthier goals or highlight the potential dangers of disordered eating, responses with these details could trigger or encourage disordered tendencies.

  • A popular screenshot attack against AI models is to force them to say yes or no to a controversial question. Claude's system prompt now guards against that (in the <evenhandedness> section):

    If people ask Claude to give a simple yes or no answer (or any other short or single word response) in response to complex or contested issues or as commentary on contested figures, Claude can decline to offer the short response and instead give a nuanced answer and explain why a short response wouldn't be appropriate.

  • Claude 4.6 had a section specifically clarifying that "Donald Trump is the current president of the United States and was inaugurated on January 20, 2025", because without that the model's knowledge cut-off date combined with its previous knowledge that Trump falsely claimed to win the 2020 election meant it would deny he was the president. That language is gone for 4.7, reflecting the model's new reliable knowledge cut-off date of January 2026.

And the tool descriptions too

The system prompts published by Anthropic are sadly not the entire story - their published information doesn't include the tool descriptions that are provided to the model, which is arguably an even more important piece of documentation if you want to take full advantage of what the Claude chat UI can do for you.

Thanfully you can ask Claude directly - I used the prompt:

List all tools you have available to you with an exact copy of the tool description and parameters

My shared transcript has full details, but the list of named tools is as follows:

  • ask_user_input_v0
  • bash_tool
  • conversation_search
  • create_file
  • fetch_sports_data
  • image_search
  • message_compose_v1
  • places_map_display_v0
  • places_search
  • present_files
  • recent_chats
  • recipe_display_v0
  • recommend_claude_apps
  • search_mcp_registry
  • str_replace
  • suggest_connectors
  • view
  • weather_fetch
  • web_fetch
  • web_search
  • tool_search
  • visualize:read_me
  • visualize:show_widget

I don't believe this list has changed since Opus 4.6.

Tags: ai, prompt-engineering, generative-ai, llms, anthropic, claude, ai-ethics, system-prompts

Claude system prompts as a git timeline

Research: Claude system prompts as a git timeline

Anthropic publish the system prompts for Claude chat and make that page available as Markdown. I had Claude Code turn that page into separate files for each model and model family with fake git commit dates to enable browsing the changes via the GitHub commit view.

I used this to write my own detailed notes on the changes between Opus 4.6 and 4.7.

Tags: system-prompts, anthropic, claude, generative-ai, ai, llms

Random observations

  1. This FT story is very good news:

The extradition to the US of a trader accused of netting $2mn from insider trading has been quashed by the UK’s highest court, in an unusual decision by British judges to curb the reach of American justice. . . .

The Supreme Court in its ruling noted that the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority investigated El-Khouri between November 2016 and January 2018 before concluding there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him.

The UK regulator found that no participant could provide a narrative to explain how the alleged insider trading scheme operated, and identified weaknesses in the available circumstantial evidence.

The US government is a bully, and our insider trading laws are poorly thought out. If the UK government didn’t believe was insider trading, it probably wasn’t insider trading.

  1. Matt Yglesias linked to this 6-year old story:

FBI and Department of Justice officials today announced the disruption of one of the largest Medicare fraud schemes in U.S. history. An international fraud ring allegedly bilked Medicare out of more than $1 billion by billing it for unnecessary medical equipment—mainly back, shoulder, wrist, and knee braces.

Two comments. First, this is why you should not have government programs giving people lots of free stuff. (I’m on Medicare, and every three months I get to go on a free shopping spree at CVS.) Second, if you insist on programs giving out lots of free stuff, you don’t want to “economize” by firing the bureaucrats that investigate fraud. Nor do you want to pardon criminals convicted of large-scale criminal Medicare fraud. Nor do you want to elect presidents that do the previous two things.

  1. There’s a lot of reaction to the blizzard of initiatives from the Trump administration, much of it overreaction (on both sides). Francis Fukuyama gets to the heart of the problem:

In my book Political Order and Political Decay, I wrote about how difficult it is to create modern, impersonal, high-capacity states. There is always pressure for “re-patrimonialization,” that is, the regress of a modern impersonal bureaucracy into a patrimonial one run by friends and family of the ruler. The United States is experiencing re-patrimonialization as we speak: citizens freely debating laws are replaced by supplicants begging the king to favor their interests. MAGA world, for some reason, thinks that this constitutes a return to constitutional first principles.

It actually means the exact opposite. The second Trump administration is turning into one of the most lawless presidencies in American history.

On a related note, this comment in The Economist caught my eye:

The closeness of business and politics also helps explain why there are so few African entrepreneurs of global standing, and so few globally competitive African firms. It is hard to become a legitimate billionaire when wealth depends on politics.

  1. Please legalize sex work:

In 2018 Scott Cunningham of Baylor University and Manisha Shah of the University of California, Berkeley, used a Rhode Island judge’s surprise decision to (in effect) decriminalise indoor sex work and found it led to a drop in both violent crime and female gonorrhoea cases. In 2020 Ms Shah and her co-authors considered the inverse situation after a district of East Java in Indonesia unexpectedly criminalised sex work. Sexually transmitted infections among sex workers rose, while women pushed out of the trade struggled to pay their children’s school expenses.

  1. The Chinese people have interesting views:

A particularly vocal group of nationalists is known as xiaofenhong, or “little pinks”. These young, fiercely patriotic netizens are not the kind of people who, in America, would be thought of as typical Trump supporters. Chinese academics say the pinks are often well educated and urban. The original little pinks were mainly young women, though the group is now more diverse. As with MAGA types in America, the main targets of their discontent are liberals at home, such as Ms Jin.

Public opinion in China is polarised. Culture wars rage, just as they do in America. Some nationalists share the misogynist worldview of young men in the West known as “incels” (involuntary celibates), who blame their inability to form sexual relationships on supposedly over-empowered and picky women. In China, such people sometimes self-deprecatingly call themselves diaosi, which literally means “dick hair”. They do endless battle online with China’s equally fiery feminists.

Cyber-liberals point out the irony of their opponents’ pro-Trump views. “Some so-called ‘little pinks’ and patriotic bloggers on Weibo spend their days opposing feminism and LGBT rights, demonising the left, and end up idolising one extreme anti-China, deranged right-winger after another,” wrote a Weibo user who has more than 390,000 followers after Mr Trump’s victory.

The pinks are communists, which in China means right-wing. The liberals are pro-free market. Very confusing for Americans.

  1. Steve Chapman has a very good piece on the rise of anti-trans bigotry in the GOP:

What’s more, the alleged danger that cross-dressing men will invade restrooms and locker rooms to prey on women is strikingly hypocritical coming from a party whose leader has been found guilty of sexual abuse by a civil jury—and who has bragged of forcibly groping women. Trump has also sought to elevate to Cabinet offices men credibly accused of sexual abuse, including Pete Hegseth, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Matt Gaetz. None of them was reported to be wearing women’s clothing when they committed their alleged offenses. . . .

Critics of Biden’s policy insisted it would harm morale and readiness, but in 2018, before Trump’s previous partial ban was imposed, the chiefs of all four military branches testified before Congress that military readiness and unit cohesion had not been affected by the presence of openly transgender troops. A survey conducted in 2020, when Trump’s previous ban was in effect, found that two-thirds of active-duty service members supported allowing transgender people to serve.

Chapman points out that a GOP House member refers to Delaware Congresswoman Sarah McBride as “the gentleman from Delaware”. The modern GOP combines cruelty with stupidity in a way that I haven’t seen since the Jim Crow Democrats of the 1950s.

  1. Cry, the beloved continent? Here’s The Economist:

On current trends Africans will make up over 80% of the world’s poor by 2030, up from 14% in 1990.

Or is this a better description?

In many ways, there has never been a better time to be born African. Since 1960, average life expectancy has risen by more than half, from 41 years to 64. The share of children dying before their fifth birthday has fallen by three-quarters. The proportion of young Africans attending university has risen nine-fold since 1970. African culture is being recognised worldwide; in the 2020s African authors have won the Booker prize, the Prix Goncourt and the Nobel prize for literature.

Both are true. Africa has more poverty than anywhere else, and also more happy healthy babies enjoying their new life.

  1. It is difficult for outsiders to understand the extreme level of governmental incompetence in the state of California. A few years ago, I did several posts discussing two futile attempts to auction off a prime piece of Orange County real estate. Now they are back at it:

During the first auction attempt in 2023, the GSA included a requirement that the building be preserved. There were no bidders. In a second attempt in 2024, without the preservation requirement, bidding exceeded $160 million, but the sale ultimately was not completed.

Laguna Niguel Mayor Gene Johns said the city is very excited about the new prospect of a sale.

“We’re looking forward to whoever the new owner may be,” he said. “It’s over 90 acres, which is prime real estate in South Orange County, so whoever gets this, it will be a tremendous addition to our city with whatever is built in that area. We are truly looking forward to whoever it is.”

Johns said the city’s staff would sit down with a new owner and look at their plans, which he hopes will blend with the feel of the area and fit the city’s needs. “You would assume whoever purchases that would understand how South Orange County is, how our city is and you would assume they would come in with plans that would fit that.”

By “fit that”, he means build as little housing as possible. This in a state that is desperately short of housing. Perhaps my cynicism will ultimately be proven wrong, but by that time I’ll no longer be alive for anyone to tell me “I told you so.”

  1. Congratulations to Alan Cole for picking up some $100 bills off the sidewalk. He bet that government spending would increase in 2025, in nominal terms.

    WASHINGTON—Alan Cole put his life savings, all $342,195.63, into a prediction-market wager. He insists he’s not really a betting man.

    Cole is a 37-year-old tax economist with Ivy League degrees, a mortgage and a young child. Until Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency came roaring into the nation’s capital last year, he was largely a plain-vanilla investor or, as he puts it, a “normal, conventional Wall Street Journal-reading adult.”

    But Musk’s boasts and his eager fans brought an unusual opportunity into the burgeoning U.S. prediction markets: People willing to bet that the world’s richest man would transform and shrink the federal government.

    Cole took the opposite position, one he didn’t see as a gamble at all. If federal spending in each quarter of 2025 exceeded federal spending in the fourth quarter of 2024, he would win big.

Efficient markets people like me are too lazy to look down at our feet. I didn’t even know this bet existed.

  1. George Bush has a new Substack entitled “In Pursuit”, a reference to the Declaration of Independence. He has a nice post on George Washington, my favorite president. I guess “In Pursuit of Happiness” was already taken, but I would have sold the rights for a six figure payout. :)

  2. This FT report caught my eye:

    Apollo Global Management will establish a second US headquarters in the American South, where the bulk of its future hires will be based.

    Apollo joins a small group of elite New York-based finance firms looking to make a major commitment to a Sunbelt state. It has been considering Austin, Texas, south Florida and Nashville, according to multiple people familiar with the matter. The firm recently surveyed their partners and managing directors over their location preferences.

    Hmm, I wonder what possible reason Apollo had for focusing on those three states in particular:

  1. More evidence against lab leak.

  2. This is extremely misleading:

    For the first time in history, the average pound of ground beef is higher than Federal Minimum Wage. Everything is not fine.

    The federal minimum wage was effectively repealed many years ago. If they reduced it from $7.25/hour to one cent per hour, essentially nothing would change. As an analogy, what would happen if the German autobahn switched from no speed limit to a limit of 1000km/hour? Non-binding constraints don’t matter.

  3. There are times when I strongly support a particular point of view, but do not approve of the way it is being argued:

    New Penn-Wharton study shows per-capita federal spending on each age group:
    Seniors: $43,700
    Children and young adults: $4,300.

    Yes, recent federal government policy has been far too favorable to the old (including the $6000 tax deduction I got this year.) But this particular comparison doesn’t really address the issue. Apart from abolishing Social Security and Medicare, any plausible reform to “fix” this problem would likely leave a huge imbalance—say $30,000 to $40,000 for the old and $4000 or $5000 for the young. As presented, readers might wrongly conclude these two figures should be equalized. (To be clear, I’m a fan of Jessica Riedl’s work on fiscal policy and this comment is not directed at her.)

  4. Eric Boehm of Reason magazine recently had this to say:

    Taxpayers in Jacksonville, Florida, will spend $775 million—the largest single expense in the city’s history—upgrading a stadium that was built in the 1990s for just $121 million ($263 million in today’s dollars).

And note that taxpayers are only picking up a portion of the total cost, which is estimated to be $1.4 billion. How should we think about this cost increase? Is this inflation? Is this falling productivity in the construction industry? Perhaps to some extent, but consider the following hypothetical statement:

John bought a $77,500 Mercedes, upgrading from a $12,100 Chevy bought in the 1990s ($26,300 in today’s dollars.)

We would not use that example to estimate inflation in the car manufacturing industry (and to be clear, Reason magazine is not doing that.) Is this hyperbole on my part? I don’t think so. The project portrayed in this article is a vast upgrade from a typical 1990s stadium. (Check out the pictures.) To take just one of many examples:

The renovated stadium will be able to seat 62,000, expanding up to 71,500 for special events—slightly lower than existing capacity. The canopy will reduce heat retention by more than 70 percent, The Jaguars said in a press release, lowering temperatures by 10 to 15 degrees for fans inside the stadium.

In contrast, a 1990s Chevy could provide AC roughly as effectively as today’s Mercedes.

I think people tend to forget how much richer we are than in the 1990s, and how rapidly our expectations for comfort have increased along with greater wealth.

  1. In February 2025, I suggested that AI and fertility were the two most important trends, and in a later post I discussed some possible links between the two issues. Other people seem to be reaching a similar conclusion:

  1. Someone recently tweeted this graph:

What should we make of the fact that the highest ratio (99%) is in Bulgaria and the lowest ratio (45%) is in Switzerland? Is immigration good or is this a case of: Never reason from an immigration ratio? (Or both?)

  1. Here’s Matt Yglesias:

    I also think that to some extent, you cannot stop people from making statistical inferences about other human beings. But conservatives are way too eager to validate stereotype-based discrimination as a critical tool of public policy.

    You see that a lot in the policing context, where conservatives have been eager to embrace racial profiling as an enforcement tactic. That tends to broaden out, though, to a kind of generally lackadaisical attitude toward civil liberties and abuses of power that are driven by confidence that they won’t ever be targeted by the enforcement apparatus.

    The speed with which suburban Republicans go into anarchist mode when the subject is traffic cameras kind of gives away the game: The fact that the enforcement mechanism isn’t discriminatory combined with the fact that the victims of speeding cars are unlikely to be people like them causes a wholesale pivot.

    Republicans say they wish to punish criminals, but they lose their fervor for “law and order” when it comes to beefing up the IRS, beefing up traffic enforcement and punishing mobs that storm the Capitol. It’s an oversimplification to suggest that Republicans wish to punish criminals—they favor punishing Black and Hispanic criminals. Of course, many Democrats (not Yglesias) have exactly the opposite problem. And you wonder why both parties are historically unpopular.

  2. A couple weeks ago, I suggested that someone could create a company called Wedding Fantasy to provide fake weddings for single women that didn’t wish to marry. Now the NYT has picked up on a similar idea. Check out this Alice Evans tweet:

    This NYT article reports on wealthy, single women celebrating 40th birthdays as if they were destination weddings

  3. Some pundits blame big city problems on “drugs”. I’ve always been skeptical of that claim. According to the NYT, San Francisco has recently made dramatic improvements in public order by cracking down on anti-social behavior such as tents pitched on the sidewalk and shoplifting. Car break-ins have recently fallen from 86 to 15 per day. Murder is at the lowest level since 1954. It turns out that we can achieve wonders by merely enforcing the law. Drugs are correlated with disorder, but they don’t cause disorder.

  4. This Bloomberg piece is a particularly horrific example of reasoning from a price change:

    The [Iran] conflict may do some of the Chinese central bank’s work for it. Once a fairly uncontroversial prediction, interest-rate cuts look less of a sure thing.

    Unlike most economies, China didn’t see the sharp spurt in inflation that followed reopening from the pandemic. Nor did the People’s Bank of China need to boost borrowing costs like the Federal Reserve or European Central Bank; it worried more that demand was languishing. But the spike in energy costs that’s followed the assault on Iran, and its retaliation, may give consumer prices the nudge they need to propel them from the danger zone.

    Nope. Supply side inflation doesn’t help to rescue an economy from demand side deflation.

  5. The wisdom of Brian Albrecht (discussing Tyler’s new book):

    Yes, lots of people ask non-economic questions but people still care about prices. In any seminar I’ve been to, the reasoning matters a lot.

    And that reasoning is useful even when it doesn’t produce a paper. Most of the price-theoretic work happening in the world isn’t published. It’s an economist reading a paper and thinking “that can’t be right, because...” It’s someone writing a newsletter explaining why a popular argument about inflation is incoherent. It’s going about your day thinking through causality, prices, what happens at the margin. The academic market doesn’t reward this directly. It rewards the downstream output. But the downstream output is worse without it.

Read more

Trump Can't Even Surrender Right

Transcript

When you’re losing a war, but it’s not an existential defeat, your country, your government can continue pretty much as before. Aside from the humiliation, there’s a well-established technique, which is to declare victory and pull out. But it appears that Trump can’t even pull that off.

Hi, Paul Krugman with a Saturday update on the situation in the Strait of Hormuz and all of that. It’s been clear for a while that the United States has basically lost this war. The goal was to achieve regime change, possibly to take Iran’s uranium. Neither of those is going to happen. The Iranian regime is harder line than it was before. Iran has ended up strengthened because it’s demonstrated its ability to shut off traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. No way the United States, even under current management, is going to commit ground troops to attempt to really do in Iran’s nuclear program on a sustained basis.

So the indicated strategy was to essentially give up, but claim that something wonderful was accomplished, and that’s certainly something that Trump is good at doing. But he hasn’t been able to pull that off, I think because he himself is incapable of facing reality.

So the Iranians said that they are willing to allow free passage of shipping through the strait, by which it turns out they mean basically passage that stays close to the Iranian coast and pays a toll along the way. Well, what’s our alternative to that? What is it that we want to get?

The United States has started imposing a blockade on Iran, which hurts the Iranians. It does give them a reason to seek a deal, but only if they get something out of it. So if allowing ships to start carrying oil and LNG and fertilizer and helium out of the Gulf allows them to sell their own oil again and to import food, which apparently is an important issue for Iran, then that’s a deal that can be done. It will, in practice, be a strategic defeat for the United States, but something that the Trump administration could try to spin as a victory.

But in order to get that, you have to actually deliver on that deal. You can claim that you’re winning and that they’re surrendering, not us, but you have to actually deliver on the deal. What Trump tried to do was to say, great, they’re opening up the strait, but meanwhile, we’re going to continue our blockade. And also, they have promised that we can have the uranium, which they had not.

That doesn’t work. It’s just basic logic. Why would the Iranians agree to a deal if they don’t get a lifting of the US embargo, don’t get their ability to sell oil and their ability to import food back? If that’s what’s going to happen, then you might as well keep the strait blocked. So what was this supposed to be? What was the idea? What was the thinking?

Well, as best I can tell, and this is all speculation now, I don’t think that Trump has taken on board, maybe he’s emotionally incapable of taking on board the reality that he screwed up, that he took us to war and lost, that he, in his mind, still thinks that America has the upper hand and that the Iranians are cowering in fear over the might of the U.S. military, and that he doesn’t need to make any concessions,

Does he really believe that? Do we even know? Is really believing a thing that makes sense in his case? Probably not. But to some extent, he is at least incapable of accepting as a basic proposition, never mind in public, but at least in terms of actual policymaking, accepting as a proposition that, well, the U.S. just found the limits to its power, and they turn out to be closer to our goal than they are to the Iranians’ goal. So we basically have to cut our losses by making a deal that leaves the Iranians with some stuff that they didn’t have before.

He can’t seem to do that. But if he doesn’t do that, then the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed. In fact, it’s more closed than before because the Iranians are not managing to export oil, which is new. They were exporting oil before, and now that little bit of supply to the world market has been cut off. It’s about 2% of world oil supply. Not huge, but in a very tight oil market, it is significant. And I have no idea where it goes from here. Once again, we’re in a situation of total uncertainty.

Now, I might be willing to say, maybe I’m misunderstanding, maybe the United States does have, in some sense, more leverage. But, you know, we do have markets. The futures markets are closed for the weekend. So let’s see what happens when they reopen Sunday night. But the prediction markets are open, and for all the problems with the prediction markets, they show very clearly that the perceived probability that the strait would reopen by June 1st spiked last week and is now back basically to where it started. All of a sudden, we’re down to a 30% or so probability of getting the strait open anytime soon, which looks about right. Maybe that’s even a bit high.

But, my God, like I said, we are led by people who not only can’t plan a war right, they can’t even successfully execute a surrender. And that’s a really bad omen, not just for the Iran conflict, but for everything else.

Kim Lane Scheppele on Hungary

More than a year ago I interviewed my old friend and colleague Kim Lane Scheppele, a constitutional scholar who speaks Hungarian and knows Hungary, about the march of autocracy. Now, suddenly, a much happier occasion. I found her account of how this happened startling — a lot I didn’t know, even though I’ve been following the news obsessively. And some of it is wild. Here’s a transcript:

. . .

TRANSCRIPT:
Paul Krugman in Conversation with Kim Lane Scheppele

(recorded 4/16/26)

Paul Krugman: Going back after a number of months to Kim Lane Scheppele, my former office neighbor at Princeton and I think we can safely say America’s leading constitutional scholar who also knows Hungary and speaks Magyar, although you’re probably the only one.

Kim Lane Scheppele: Sorry to interrupt you, but the language is Magyar nyelv, and Magyar, the name of the person we’re going to be talking about, who’s also the new prime minister, means Hungarian. That’s your Hungarian lesson for the day. Ha!

Krugman: Oh, wow. Thanks. I would have gotten that all wrong. All right. Well, anyway, as you say, it’s been quite a week. You were on this case on my blog starting in 2010, but I think we want to just talk about first reactions to this extraordinary election on Sunday.

Scheppele: Well, yeah. It’s been hard to even comprehend the magnitude of this. I mean, not only did Péter Magyar win this election, but he won the election overwhelmingly in a rigged system. And so that’s the miracle magic of it. It turns out that Viktor Orbán had rigged the election rules so that only he could win. And the shortcut of what he did was that essentially a vote in the countryside counted three times as much as a vote in the cities. And what he counted on was that usually, if you get a challenger to a right-wing autocrat, they’re all going to be liberals, right? They’re all going to get their votes from the cities, from the educated populations. And Orban had a lock on the countryside. And then he put all the weight of the system on counting his people more than others. So Peter Magyar spent the last two years going out to villages, just meeting all of these people in person and getting around the fact that Orban also controlled all the media. So the media was rigged, the election system was rigged. And when the vote came in on Sunday, he was at 15 to 20 points ahead in the polls.

Krugman: Right.

Scheppele: But that did not guarantee he was going to win. And it did not guarantee that he was going to win by the majority. And so when the numbers started piling up, like I was watching the early returns and the early returns were coming in from villages that should have been the Orban vote. And it was a Tisza vote, it was a Peter Magyar vote. And so you knew just from the first 2 or 3% of the vote that it was going to be overwhelming. And sure enough, the whole evening the results came in and Peter Magyar won. It might shift a little bit, 1 or 2 numbers now, but about 138 seats out of the 199 seats in the parliament, and Orban had to concede. There was just no way that he could even claim fraud or try to do anything to change it, because he just didn’t have votes come in from anywhere.

Krugman: Okay, it’s funny but that’s the first clear explanation I’ve gotten of how the rigging worked. Because the reporting has been pretty vague. And, you know, there’s still a fair number of people saying, “oh, it can’t really have been rigged, because after all, he lost.”

Scheppele: Yeah. No, it was so rigged. I mean, literally, Orban rewrote all the rules in 2015. And, Paul, I need to give you a shout out here because, you know, Americans didn’t know anything about this. And I live in my head in Hungary. And I would come in every day to campus and see you in my office next door and go on whining and complaining about how Orban had been building a dictatorship starting in 2010. And you said, “Well, how come The New York Times isn’t covering it?” And I said, “Well, no one’s covering it because no one can see it.” It was all legal. It was all technical. It was really hard to see how Orban was nailing things down.

And then you called me up on a Sunday and said, “Okay, I’m going to do tomorrow’s column on Hungary.” And so, remember, we scrambled around, I was translating documents. The fact checkers were calling me up, and you wrote that blog post on a Monday, and then you said to me, “Look, you know, it’s more complicated than I could say. You can put something up on my blog.” And then we did that for like 3 or 4 years. You were putting all my commentaries up on your blog, and I was the only one covering it in English at that time. So, you know, if it wasn’t for your venue, it would have been impossible to get this on the radar screen of Americans. So, Paul, it’s your victory, too.

Krugman: I hope it is. I mean, I feel like I was facilitating your victory, it’s obviously the Hungarian people’s victory. But actually one of the things that strikes me here is that, we talk a lot about how Orban muzzled and controlled the media in Hungary, but, effectively, there was an international muzzling coming out of a couple of things.

Scheppele: Yeah.

Krugman: I remember you saying that basically even big international news organizations sort of had one stringer in Budapest who often turned out to be somebody affiliated with Fidesz. So.

Scheppele: Right. Well, there were a whole bunch of ways that he muzzled the international press. So one was just that, if you were a domestic journalist reporting for the international press, you were under surveillance, you were under threat. The international news organizations, including, by the way, the New York Times, had to start providing physical security for the reporters because they were really being threatened with death threats and the whole nine yards. And, you know, I got death threats, too, sometimes through the comments section on your blog. Right? So, everybody commenting on it was really under threat in some sense.

But the other thing that happened was once the international press pulled out because they couldn’t pay for the security anymore, they’d hire Hungarian stringers and then the Hungarian stringers would have other things happen to them, like they’d get doxxed and there’d be mobs outside their apartment and they’d have to move out of their houses. And really, it was a huge campaign. And then the final thing, and maybe not the final thing, but at every single Hungarian embassy in the world, the ambassador was told, “Your job is to keep negative news about Hungary from appearing in the press.” So every time there was a story criticizing Orban, the embassy would call the editors and say, “You’ve got to give us equal time,” or “you can’t trust those journalists,” or “you should never use those sources again.” Going back, this was during your days at the Times, there was a Hungarian-American reporter who was writing for the Times, and the Hungarian government called the Times and said, “we don’t trust this guy.” And they stopped putting his byline on stories until they did a full check on him.

Krugman: Okay.

Scheppele: So that was happening to the international press. So it’s not just the domestic press that was muzzled, but the international press as well. And so it took a very long time. I mean, Orban had the whole system locked down in just three years, and it took until five, 6 or 7 years later before the rest of the world caught up to the fact that a dictatorship had been constructed in plain sight.

Krugman: What’s also extraordinary is that even now — I mean, this is the first time I’ve heard anyone, and I’ve been reading the news reporting obsessively, but the first time I’ve had as clear an explanation of how the rigging worked and how Magyar broke it. And, you know, the eyes of the world have been on Hungary a lot, if only because Hungary has been the star of CPAC for years now. And you would think that by now reporting would have gotten it right.

Scheppele: Yeah. Well, I’ll tell you, part of the problem is that Orban and his circle are lawyers, and they pioneered this sort of 21st-century version of dictatorship where you don’t shut down the media. You just regulate them or you threaten them or whatever. Everything was done technically by law. And I think most Hungarians didn’t understand how the law was rigged. I wrote a quite detailed article about this in the Journal of Democracy after the last election, going in detail step by step through all the stages of exactly how Orban rigged things. So, it was gerrymandering. It was things like, the districts expected to vote for Orban had 30,000 voters, and the district expected to vote for the opposition had 90,000 voters.

Krugman: Right, right.

Scheppele: And then there were all kinds of other election tricks that Orban borrowed. For the 2014 election, I wrote about this on your blog in five parts. Remember? You put up five parts. “Election in Question, part one,” “Election in Question, part two.” There was just every single which way [they could change the rules].

So just another example. Orban said, “we have all these minority groups in Hungary. They should be represented in the parliament.” Everybody’s cheering, like minority representation—what a good thing. So there was this possibility of the Roma having a separate representative in parliament and the Germans and other ethnic groups. And it turns out if you registered to vote on that party list, you only needed 20,000 votes to get a seat. So all those seats got colonized by Orban’s people. The Roma guy was a Fidesz person. That’s Orban’s party. The German guy was a Fidesz person. So all these little things gave Orban one seat here, four seats there and so on. And if you look at Orban’s popularity in Hungarian opinion polls going back to 2010, he never got above 35% in his personal popularity. And in elections, he would struggle to get 45%. But then he would get 67% of the seats in the parliament, and that two-thirds threshold mattered because the Hungarian Constitution can be amended with a single two-thirds vote of the unicameral parliament. And if he could get two thirds, he put himself above the law. So it’s 199 seats in the Hungarian Parliament, 133 is two thirds larger. Magyar just got 138. That’s what’s so stunning.

Krugman: One immediate thought is thinking about the extreme unequal representations, rural versus urban. The closest equivalent I can think of is the US Senate.

Scheppele: Yeah. The Electoral College, too, right?

Krugman: The Electoral College somewhat. But the Senate, where California has two senators and Wyoming has two senators, exactly like that. It over-represents the rural areas. And when you get this urban-rural, educated-uneducated split, it guarantees that the right always has an advantage. And you said Magyar’s been campaigning about two years, right? He was in Fidesz. He had actually been part of Orban’s government.

Scheppele: Yeah. So here’s the good news and the bad news about Peter Magyar. So he came of age and was attracted to Orban’s party because he’s basically a center-right kind of guy and Orban’s is the center-right party. So he went into the party machine sort of right after school, and he stayed in the Orban machine for 20 years. He was posted to Brussels. He was in what’s called the Hungarian Perm Rep, which is the big embassy that every member state of the EU has in Brussels, which handles the state affairs with the EU. He was there. Then he came back and he held a variety of positions in the state-owned companies that Fidesz ran. So he was in the system. He benefited from the system. And then there was this really funny event that brought him to public attention. He had this acrimonious divorce.

Krugman: Okay.

Scheppele: And, like, you can’t make this stuff up. Wait till we get to zebras.

Krugman: Okay.

Scheppele: But his wife, who was always a trailing spouse with all of his appointments, and also a very clever lawyer, really smart. Orban had named her the justice minister of Hungary. Her name is Judit Varga. And she presided over, really defending Orban’s interests at the EU. And she’s kind of a pit bull like Orban. She and Peter had this acrimonious divorce. But it happened around the same time that —probably Orban, we don’t know for sure—but she approved a pardon of a guy who ran an orphanage in which the orphanage had had state employees who engaged in sexual abuse of children, in other words, a pedophilia scandal.

Krugman: Right.

Scheppele: And the principal had known about it and cooperated. She issued the pardon for this guy, and there was this huge firestorm of objection. A pedophilia scandal. I mean, you can think of the American parallels, right? And so Orban insisted that she be fired. So she left the cabinet. And that was the moment when Peter Magyar, having just divorced her, popped out of the woodwork and said, “How dare Orban hide behind women’s skirts?” And then he said, “And because I was married to her, I know where all the corruption happened, where all the bodies are buried.” And he had, it turns out, made audiotapes of his conversations with his ex-wife during the acrimonious divorce. I mean, that’s why you can’t make it up. I have to tell you this because this is something that’s not really making the headlines in the U.S. but he actually had the tapes through which she had talked about some of the corruption scandals inside the Orban government. And so he pops out, accuses Orban of hiding behind women’s skirts, then goes on this YouTube channel.

Krugman: Okay.

Scheppele: So by this time the opposition has no TV, no radio, hardly any major newspapers. The opposition started a YouTube channel. So Peter Magyar goes on the YouTube channel with the audiotapes from his ex-wife, and gives this big interview about how much corruption there is inside the Orban camp. This makes him an instant superstar, right? Because everybody kind of knew it, but nobody knew precisely how. And so he then starts going around the countryside and giving speeches about all the corruption. He attracts a crowd, then he attracts a bigger crowd. This is all a few months before the last European election. I think he begins to get the idea, like “maybe I could form a party and run for the European election.”

The European election rules require strict proportional representation, not rigged. So he had a much better chance of getting elected to the European Parliament than he would have getting elected to the Hungarian Parliament but it’s too late to register a party. Okay, so he looks around and he finds that there’s this little party called Tisza, which is the name of a river in eastern Hungary. And he goes to the people who took out the party name and said, essentially, “Can I kidnap your party?” And so that’s how he gets a party, cobbles together who knows who to run on the party list. And he gets actually a pretty big vote to put himself into the European Parliament. Okay, now that matters, because first of all, it’s a clap-a-meter that shows you the guy actually has a real chance of standing up to Orban. But second of all, he becomes a member of the European Parliament and that gives him parliamentary immunity.

Krugman: I was about to ask that.

Scheppele: And at first he said, I’m not going to take my seat. I’m going to give it to somebody else. I’m going to stay here and work for Hungarian liberation here. And then I think somebody said to him, yeah, but you get parliamentary immunity. So I’m not sure he ever showed up in Brussels, but he did get parliamentary immunity. And so when Orban came after him with sort of—pardon the expression—trumped-up charges to try to sideline him, the government technically had to go to the European Parliament and ask that his parliamentary immunity be lifted. And the European Parliament said, no.

Krugman: Right. Like you have to know he got a lot of help. But it’s just too complicated and too detailed. Right.

Scheppele: But it tells you how many things had to fall into place for him to overcome how rigged the system was. Okay, so then he figures out that if you don’t win the countryside, you can’t win at all. And he comes out of the countryside, actually, and he’s a center-right guy, which is to say that on left-right issues, he’s unlikely to be very different from Orban. You know, it’s fine. It’s a center-right country. On democracy-dictatorship issues, he’s entirely different from Orban. And that’s what we need, right? And that’s what he’s promised to do, is really restore democratic institutions.

Okay, so Peter Magyar has this acrimonious divorce. He was known for wearing these highly, shall we say, form-fitting clothes. He got the nickname “Slim Fit Jesus,” because, you know, he’s pretending to save the masses. But all of his clothes were so tight-fitting that, shall we say, it was almost embarrassing to look at him. And so he gets this kind of name, but of course, he’s also auditioning for girlfriends, right? Because he’s a 45-year-old guy who no longer is married. So the Orban intelligence services send him a girlfriend who then tapes all their recordings. Just what he did to his ex-wife, right? And she comes out with these recordings in which he calls members of his own party idiots because he doesn’t know them. I mean, he just sort of cobbled together the party. That doesn’t affect his popularity.

And then actually, during the election campaign, the government did this thing where—I mean, they didn’t say it came from the government, but where else? It goes to the government media. They release a still photograph of a bedroom with a rumpled bed and some white powder on the side table. And it’s got a camera, sort of from the ceiling angled down on the bed. And the media is told: “coming soon.” So you think it’s going to be a Peter Magyar sex tape. He comes out and he says, “I’m a healthy 45-year-old man who has consensual sex with women.” Like, so there.

Krugman: As in, regarding the tape.

Scheppele: And this is like the brilliant thing that starts happening. He’s got these crowds. He’s got people who are so thrilled to discover that they’re not alone in hating the Orban regime because they’d been threatening people. They’d been separating people. There was no public space in which to figure out that you weren’t the only one who hated Orban. And Magyar’s rallies had become the place where you could do that. So he’s got all these young people who have joined the campaign. And when this still photograph of the bedroom comes out, suddenly all these Hungarian computer whizzes start doing AI-generated videotapes of Orban in bed with Trump and Putin in bed with Orban. And like all of these things. So if they were going to drop a sex tape, it would be indistinguishable from, you know, two dozen or so of these AI fake videos of everything else that might have happened in the bedroom. And so the government never released the sex tape.

Krugman: By the way, one of the things that I didn’t really realize, actually, until the craziness of South Korea, is that we were all focused on X, formerly Twitter, and BlueSky was down this morning and I was quite upset—but YouTube is a tremendously important medium for political communication around the world.

Scheppele: Exactly. And that’s how the opposition has been communicating. So, for example, on election night, I couldn’t go there, but I was just watching the Partizán channel and they just had all these commentaries. They had good graphics and actually the funny thing was that they had in their studio a spinning head where one side of it had the face of Orban and the other side had the face of Magyar. And the whole evening it was spinning. And then when it became clear, it stopped and you saw only Magyar. So it was fun to watch Partizán this time. But the campaign had turned out to be fun. This was the thing we’ve all missed. Like the rallies were just occasions to find out that everybody didn’t want Orban. And they got bigger and bigger. There were rock bands, there were speeches, there was humor, and then there were the zebras. I promised you, zebras.

Krugman: So, the zebras. I know a little bit, but tell us about the zebras.

Scheppele: Yeah. So it turns out that Peter Magyar became this sort of rock star because of his exposure of corruption. There were some great investigative journalists and some anti-corruption campaigners. And one of the anti-corruption campaigners discovered this palace that was being built outside of Budapest, allegedly by Orban’s father. So we know his father and it was Orban’s money, right? And next door is the palatial estate of Orban’s best friend, the blue-collar worker who is now the richest man in Hungary. Everybody knows that’s Orban’s money, right? And somehow they got a picture over the fence of a little—I keep saying I’ve got to look up the collective noun for zebras.

Krugman: Okay.

Scheppele: But they found a gaggle, a flock, a herd of zebras, and took pictures of zebras. And suddenly this became the symbol of Orban’s corruption. So people are turning up at the rallies with zebra heads and zebra costumes and little zebra pins wearing black-and-white striped t-shirts and all this kind of stuff. So the zebra became the meme. But the reason why I mentioned the looking over the fence is that this anti-corruption campaigner, Ákos Hadházy is his name, sponsors tours where he takes a ladder and a bunch of people, and he puts up the ladder on the fence and everybody climbs up and looks over and sees for themselves. And that’s also been part of the anti-corruption campaign.

Krugman: Right. So I think the original picture may have come from drones, but then other people are climbing over the wall to look at the zebras. And just a quick thought, I mean, actually it reminds me a bit of the fall of communism when people were going on about the luxury in which the East German leadership lived. And I was thinking, yeah, that’s not luxury by US standards. Even then, with US inequality being what it was. I saw the photos of the Orban estate and it’s very nice, maybe particularly since we know it’s all stolen money. But my God, it’s not something that Mark Zuckerberg would find remotely impressive.

Scheppele: Exactly. It’s got one of those one-lane lap pools instead of a giant kind of private lake like Yanukovich had in Ukraine, which had his own yacht in his private lake. It’s not that kind of estate, right? But in Hungary, it’s shocking, because Hungary had one of the most egalitarian distributions of wealth after communism. Not so many visible oligarchs. So the oligarchs have only become that rich more recently and under Orban. That’s also what’s happened. And this is, like, “it’s the economy, stupid.” I mean, I’m sure you were watching this. The pandemic hit Hungary very hard because it exposed that the hospital system had been chronically underfunded for years. So another meme that Peter Magyar used very effectively was toilet paper. The hospitals don’t have toilet paper.

Krugman: My God.

Scheppele: And of course, when I lived there in the ‘90s, the hospitals also didn’t have toilet paper, but never mind. But he would go into hospitals with a camera crew and look for the toilet paper. Just look at the peeling paint on the walls and stuff like that. So the pandemic exposed the underfunding of the health care system, and the death rate from Covid in Hungary was actually quite high. And they put the military in charge of the hospitals so that the information wouldn’t leak out about how bad things were. That was, you know, 2020-2021. So then what happened, of course, was the post-pandemic inflation that hit the world. And you’ll know what that was in Hungary, right? It got to 20% a year.

Krugman: Yeah. I’m not quite sure I fully understand that. I mean, that’s supposed to be my department. But why inflation was so bad in Hungary was always a bit of a puzzle.

Scheppele: Yeah, I was hoping you’d explain that to me. But there were, I think, a couple of things going on. One was that Orban was both spending well beyond his means and spending corruptly. So it wasn’t actually benefiting the economy. Like, more and more money was going to private pockets. So the whole economy was sort of teetering on the brink. I think that’s part of it. And you’ll know better how that feeds into inflation. But I was trying to get the EU to cut their money ever since 2012.

Krugman: Right.

Scheppele: And so I got together with a group of wonderful friends, academic scholars. We first wrote the law review articles that explain why they could do it under EU law, then lobbied for the laws so they had a structure for doing it, then had to lobby the European Commission to actually do it in the courts to uphold it. And anyway, it was a ten-year process. And in December 2022, the EU cut almost all the funds to Hungary overnight. So this is cohesion and a lot of other funds. Remember, there was a big recovery fund where the EU had gone to the markets to make up for the budget hole caused by Covid and the UK departure. The total EU budget was sort of half the usual budget, and that was half the recovery fund. But they had built so-called conditionality into both those streams of funding. So Hungary lost about €36 billion in a sharp cut overnight. And that was on top of inflation creeping up. But I think the markets were also anticipating this was going to happen.

Krugman: Okay. And you know, Hungary has the same population as New Jersey, it turns out. And much poorer than New Jersey. So €36 billion is a lot of money for Hungary.

Scheppele: Right. Exactly. And Orban had been siphoning off about a quarter of that money just straight off the top into private pockets. And the EU knew that. So when the EU cut the funds, it was a huge hit. And it was the disposable income that Orban used to hold his party together. And, you know, frankly, I’d been saying, at least to you, I mean, we used to have these conversations. “If we can just cut Orban’s money, his crony system will fall apart because they’re all on the take. That’s what holds him together.” And if you cut off their source of funding, think of it as like a resource curse problem, right? Where the resource curse is EU money. It was the only money really coming in. So, yeah.

So sure enough, that happens in 2022. Peter Magyar jumps out of the woodwork in February 2023 or a little bit later that year. But it doesn’t take long for the inside of the Orban machine to start to crack. And I think that’s one of the things that gets Peter Magyar to jump out, because he can see that the ship is going to sink if it doesn’t have the EU funds. And the EU was pretty serious about all of that. So, I do think that was a contributing factor, but there were all these other things too. I mean, just the exposure of corruption. And it was the high inflation. It was “the economy, stupid.” You know, just everything. The growth rate had flatlined. So the economy was just in serious trouble.

And Peter Magyar’s through line was “Orban is corrupt. And that’s why public services are underfunded and that’s why the economy is mismanaged. And this is why your lives are miserable in the countryside.” And so that was his pitch. And I think that’s not a left or right pitch exactly. You know, that’s something everybody can get on board with. So as it became clear he was going to really be able to run in the Hungarian parliamentary election, all the small center and center-left parties just collapsed and stood behind him, even though they knew he was not one of them at one level. But the campaign was about the elimination of corruption and the restoration of democracy. It was not about the usual left-right issues.

Krugman: Yeah. I noticed a number of people were saying, “Well, Magyar will be Orbán-ism without Orbán,” but that is referring to more left-right issues.

Scheppele: That’s right. So for example, I think he’s going to carry on with most of Orban’s policies about things like immigration or about, you know, support for families as opposed to single people without kids. All these kind of center-right things. But he has already said he’s going to lift his veto on UN sanctions against Russia and on money for Ukraine.

Oh, by the way, I should mention one other thing that came out during the campaign, which was, again, not surprising, but it’s different when you hear the tapes. Probably European security services—that’s my guess about the source—were taping Putin and Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister. Now, there are tapes that came out a couple weeks before the election of Viktor Orban, talking to Vladimir Putin and saying things like, “Well, you are the lion and we are the mouse.” Like, “How can we be helpful?”

Krugman: Wow, I hadn’t seen that.

Scheppele: Yeah. And so again it came out through the Hungarian investigative journalists, but they said they had been talking to European security services. And what also came out were these other tapes in which Peter Szijjarto, who was the foreign minister of Hungary, had been calling Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, after every European Council meeting and disclosing what happened behind closed doors as the EU was trying to decide how to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine. And those tapes came out too. And so the slogans then started to be, “Ruszkik, haza!” which means “Russians go home.”

And then actually, the final little bit of Russian intrigue here was that Orban’s campaign was floundering and failing. I mean, he was trying to run this as a foreign policy campaign but he just wasn’t getting any traction. He was sinking in the polls. So about a month and a half before the election, he invited in the Russian disinformation team that had rigged the Moldovan election by running Russian bots, by taking over Facebook feeds and just swamping the thing with disinformation. They had to move to Hungary because they can’t do it in Hungarian the way they can do it in Russian from Moldova. And so they were literally there. The investigative journalists figured it out and Orban didn’t deny it. And everybody could see their Facebook feed slowly getting taken over by Russian bots. So again, Hungarians take to this and they start labeling and flagging and making fun of and meme-ing the Russian bots.

It was just incredible how many people were online fighting this thing. I mean, maybe Peter Magyar organized some of it, but some of it was probably a spontaneous reaction. Like, “We’re fed up with Orban thinking we’re still part of the Soviet Union.” Right?

So, “Ruszkik, haza!“ was one of the main chants at the rallies and at Magyar’s election victory, because Orban had so tilted toward Russia and so far away from the EU. Peter Magyar’s slogan was, “We will rejoin Europe and I will get the money back.”

Krugman: This is something I was thinking a lot about. The role of the EU. If somebody tried to lean a ladder up against the fence at one of Putin’s estates to take a look, you know, I don’t think they’d come back to tell the tale. And then in general, just sort of the willingness to just plain use violence as opposed to legal stratagems.

Scheppele: Yeah. That surely has a lot to do with the fact that Hungary was still in the EU and under restraints.

Krugman: Yeah.

Scheppele: I think that the EU puts a floor underneath how far the government can sink to using coercive measures. And so they never really resorted to violence against Hungarians. Now of course immigrants—that was a different story, right? And that was sort of with a wink and nod from the EU, as well. But in terms of actually assaulting journalists, you’ll probably recall because this happened when I was guest blogging on your blog, but I had a source that was feeding me a lot of information from inside Hungarian institutions. And that person was beaten up and left for dead on one of the main streets of Budapest.

Krugman: Yeah.

Scheppele: And he went and reported this to the police. I think we talked about this at the time, and the police said to him, “Oh, it just so happens the CCTV cameras were turned off at that time.” And he and I both interpreted this as they knew he was the one feeding me a lot of sensitive information. And he was getting beaten up and I got death threats. And as you know, the last time I went to Hungary, which was before the pandemic, I was literally met at the plane door inside the jet bridge by six uniformed police. So it’s not that they were above using coercion, but they wouldn’t have shot someone on a ladder looking over the fence, right? They’d harass you. They’d arrest you. You’d suddenly discover that you needed a tax audit or, you know, it was that kind of stuff instead of overt violence.

Krugman: Given all that, it’s still kind of astonishingly brave that people were willing to stand up in this campaign.

Scheppele: Absolutely. And Peter Magyar developed into this role, right? Because he came out of Fidesz circles. I don’t think he imagined himself as the opposition. He spent 20 years in the shadows. This is not what most leaders do. So he kind of grew into the role as people projected onto him a role he should play. And so one of the things he started saying at his rallies is “We shall not live in fear ever again.” And so it was the fear thing. And he would travel. I mean, Peter Magyar never had security. I’m sure he had death threats. I’m sure that they had a target on his back. He was clearly bugged and wiretapped. They would occasionally release conversations between him and close associates. Like I said, they sent him a girlfriend from the security services. I mean, they had him on their radar but he never traveled with security. He’d dive into crowds to shake hands and so forth, and he would say, “This is our country. We cannot live in fear.” And then crowds were chanting like, “We shouldn’t live with fear!”

And today, actually, I was just in tears this morning reading this. One of my close friends wrote to me and was trying to make sense of everything. He’s also a sociologist, I might add. And he said, “What just happened can be expressed in the most beautiful way by the word “awakening.” I felt the country is waking up to self-consciousness as we wake up every morning. Hungarian society woke up from an unbearable world into a normal and livable world. It took time, but I feel like in the last two years, people’s attitude toward each other and toward politics has changed step by step. I just had to follow the events of the Tisza Party. [Magyar’s Party] Because whoever saw these events could testify that not only more and more people came out to the streets to listen to Peter Magyar, but people were smiling more and more and became more intimate, more joyful, more confident. And they were increasingly connected to the community with a sense of belonging. On the day after the election, Peter Magyar put it simply: ‘What happened was this is the end, and what lies ahead is change and creation.’”

I mean, that’s what those rallies were. More than what he actually said, you showed up and saw how many other people felt the same thing you did. And then the fear went away as the crowd expanded.

Krugman: That’s it. I mean, at one point I talked to Erica Chenoweth, who’s at Harvard, on the importance of the revelation that you are not alone being a very big deal. I mean, obviously it’s something that’s happening here.

Scheppele: Absolutely. All the “No Kings” demonstrations are meant to achieve that kind of sense, right? That it’s your neighbors, it’s people you know. You see who turns up at the demonstration, and then you realize who are your allies in this political fight.

Krugman: Yeah, but still extraordinary to see that happening when—it’s not quite a mailed fist inside the glove because they were restrained. I mean, none of this would have worked in Putin’s Russia, but it’s still kind of amazing.

Scheppele: Yeah, but now I think this week is euphoria week. And then we have to start looking ahead because even though Peter Magyar has this overwhelming supermajority, Orban’s system is still in place.

Krugman: Right.

Scheppele: I feel like you see the yellow brick road heading to the Emerald City, but between here and there is a swamp full of alligators, right? So, first of all, he met with the President of the Republic yesterday, who is sort of a figurehead but the President of the Republic has to sign all the laws. The President of the Republic is a Fidesz holdover. You can expect him to veto reform laws. And then the Constitutional Court is packed. And so you get a case to the Constitutional Court but it’s all packed with Orban people. They can veto whatever Peter Magyar does, right? And then it’s the audit office. It’s all these different things. And so he has to get rid of these people, and has to recover the offices. And he can change the offices by law, but not through this set of veto points, unless he finds a way to fire the people. And that won’t be a legal step, you know.

And so then how does he do that? So far, one of the disappointing things is that there’s a European advisory body called the Venice Commission which reviews laws for their compliance with European standards. And they were very important in a lot of these transitions. But in the last couple of years they’ve gotten hugely formalistic about things. So this problem recently came up in Poland, where the Tusk government came in, swept away the aspirational autocrats. They had a president who was a veto player associated with the past regime who vetoed all the laws, the Constitutional Court had been captured and declared everything else unconstitutional. The government can’t do anything. It may get voted out of power because it’s been ineffective, right? Because of the veto.

At Princeton we just had Adam Bodnar who was the justice minister in the Tusk government, who came out with a plan about how to sort of get rid of all the veto players. He sent it to the Venice Commission, which is usually the gold standard on legal advising. Basically, is it compliant with European norms? And the Venice Commission said, “No, all these people were lawfully appointed. You can’t fire them.” And I finally lost it. I’ve worked with the Venice Commission for 35 years. I’ve really appreciated their work. I broke with them and wrote an article called “Blinded by Legality.” And I said, look, the laws under which these people were appointed, that you’re now saying is a lawful appointment, were laws you told the Polish government they shouldn’t pass because they violated European standards. Right? So they passed the law that you told them not to pass, and now you’re telling them they have to follow the law you told them not to pass. What kind of advice is that?

Well, it was slightly embarrassing because I’d been invited to be the keynote speaker at their 35th anniversary, and that was after I’d come out with the broadside. So I had a very frosty reception for my keynote address. But they’re still doing that. So, you know, Peter Magyar is going to have to figure out a way through this. And it’s a little unclear how he’ll conquer the alligators before he gets to the clear path ahead.

Krugman: Well, I have to say, when I’m feeling down about the European idea, it’s that kind of thing. The Euro pettiness. Beyond the alligators, although that may be the big story, what do you think he’s going to try to do? I mean, again, this is no liberal.

Scheppele: Yeah. No, it’s true. But again, as I keep saying now, there’s a left-right political spectrum which is perfectly consistent with democracy, European values and everything else. And, you know, you and I would be on one part of the spectrum. Peter Magyar would be in another part of the spectrum, and I wouldn’t vote for him in an ordinary election, okay? But then there’s another political spectrum which runs from democracy to dictatorship.

Krugman: Yeah.

Scheppele: And on that, we’re all on the same side, right? And Peter Magyar has signaled, and I hope he follows through, that he is really in favor of restoring democratic institutions, fighting corruption. And he’s come up with two concrete proposals. The first two are pretty good. And this is where, again, the EU can be petty and it can be very helpful. So the European Union set up something called the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. And the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is just—for the EU law people in your audience—it’s an “enhanced cooperation mechanism.” That means that a number of states got together and said we want to integrate even more than the EU allows us to integrate. And so we want to do this thing. The EU says “Fine, as long as everyone can join it.” So a number of states got together, created the public prosecutor’s office. And the only two countries that hadn’t joined were Poland and Hungary. You know, they were the dictatorships, right?

So Peter Magyar promised—and he could do it by himself, actually—on day one, Hungary will join the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Members of the Hungarian Prosecution Service is like the current DOJ, right? It’s totally in the pocket of Orban. So now he has a spare set of prosecutors from the EU who can come in and investigate the mis-spending of EU funds. And since most of Orban’s corruption came out of EU funds, that will go a very long way, and that’s he’s already said “we’re doing this day one.” And then the second thing is, he said, “The first constitutional amendment we want to pass is to limit the Prime Minister to eight years in office, and no more, starting with me. Including me.” And if that passes, it also disqualifies Orban from coming back.

Krugman: That’s an interesting backdoor way of doing it.

Scheppele: Exactly. So that’s the first constitutional amendment, he says. So that’s not bad, right? For a start. I mean, I think he’s just getting his mind around it all. He knows because he’s been inside the system and he’s a good lawyer so he’ll know how many obstacles there are, and a lot is going to depend on timing. So, like yesterday, he had a meeting with the President of the Republic, Tamas Sulyok, who used to be President of the Constitutional Court. He’s a Fidesz guy. And they came out. They posed for pictures, both looking severe. Not the best pictures of either of them. They’re full of gloom because Peter Magyar called on the president to step down. And again, just since you love the legal detail, Paul, and you’ve listened to me for so long, let me tell you one more little legal detail. I could tell Orban knew he was going to lose the election back in December because he pushed through the Parliament an amendment to the Act on the Presidency, and they changed the system for impeaching the president to make it impossible for the Parliament to impeach the president.

Krugman: Okay.

Scheppele: So my thought was, okay, that’s the office they’re going to rely on if Peter Magyar wins the election and Orban loses. So here again, you’ve got this guy in power. And actually he said yesterday he might step down. But everything depends on when he steps down. If he steps down, even with Orban’s parliament, as a lame duck, his two-thirds Parliament is still there for another few weeks.

Krugman: I was wondering about that.

Scheppele: Yeah, if Sulyok steps down, Orban’s Parliament can elect somebody. And the reason why they might do it is because Sulyok’s term expires before Magyar’s term is over. And if they reset the clock, the presidency lasts five years, the government lasts four years, they would have somebody who would be there through the whole Magyar term. And I thought that was going to happen regardless. So that may still happen. But they came out and they said, “Well, look, maybe what we should do is change to an elected presidency, because right now the parliament elects the president.” And Peter Magyar said, “Well, maybe that’s a good idea.” And everyone listening is going to say, “Yeah, what a good idea.” And here’s the caution: we had the same debate in 1989. The outgoing communist parliament knew it was going to lose the election. And so they said in the new constitution, “what we want is an independently elected president,” because what they knew was that the only people that had public personas were all the communist guys. And the communist reformers, they were probably going to put up somebody like that, whereas the opposition had all these people who had been denied access to public media. Nobody knew who they were. And it was a ploy by the communists to keep control, even though they were going to lose the election. Here we go again, right? It’s the same thing. Who would run for president? It could be Orban, right?

Krugman: Wow.

Scheppele: He might be disqualified from being prime minister, but he’s not disqualified from being president. Who else do people know? It’s like this echo of 1989. It’s the same debate. So the way they solved it in early 1990 was that the Constitution left that space open, and the two sides agreed that it would be decided by a public referendum. And the public voted, having heard this was the debate, for the Parliament to elect the president to keep the communists out.

So it’s here we go again. And just one last thing while we’re on 1989 and the echoes of communism. I like the way Peter Magyar talked about the Hungarian government—not to say the “Orban kormany“ which would be the government or, like, administration, like we say, “Trump administration.” He would say it was the “Orban rendszer,” which means the Orban regime. And so his motto toward the end of the campaign and the big slogan behind him at the big rally where he declared victory on Sunday night was, “Most, Rendszervaltas,” which means NOW, SYSTEM CHANGE. And that was the slogan from 1989.

Krugman: Wow. I mean, I think it’s really important to understand this is not over. On the other hand, I have to say, it does sound, with the role of the Europeans and probably European security services—probably meaning the French and the British— in some ways the whole argument made by JD Vance that “the European globalists are plotting against us,” it was sort of true.

Scheppele: Well, they cut the money and the security service provided the information. They have this European public prosecutor’s office ready to go. And I think it was always aimed at Hungary. So that’s also ready to go. They’ve sort of recognized Peter Magyar. They may—and I have mixed feelings about this—but they may just give him all the money back now. I mean, there’s all these frozen funds. They haven’t made the changes yet that would deserve getting the money back, but theoretically, they could give at least some of this money back now, because Orban has overspent. Orban has spent 85% of the 2026 budget already.

Krugman: Yeah. So this could be a significant boost. They could have a “morning in Budapest” or whatever if these frozen EU funds are coming back.

Scheppele: Yeah, but since I know you follow the money, here’s one more money thing to follow. So in the last round of EU budgets, they had this recovery fund to overcome Covid. And this time they’ve got this huge amount of money that they’re raising on the markets to fund what’s called the SAFE fund, which is to fund the European defense build-up that’s coming.

Krugman: Okay.

Scheppele: So again, I think Orban’s known for a long time he would lose. I don’t think he thought he would lose this big, but he would lose. So what they’ve done is they’ve rapidly privatized the whole Hungarian defense sector. So if and when that money comes to Hungary, it’s going to go straight through the government into the pockets of Orban’s cronies, because all of the defense sector in Hungary is now privatized with his friends.

Krugman: Interesting.

Scheppele: Yeah. So, you know, it’s not over yet. You can’t get rid of 16 years of this with one election.

Krugman: But they got rid of at least some of it.

Scheppele: Oh yeah. It’s a necessary but not a sufficient condition, as the philosophers would say.

Krugman: Congratulations above all to the Hungarians. But to you. You’ve been on this case since the beginning, and at least some good has prevailed.

Scheppele: I couldn’t have done it without you, Paul, because you were the only one willing to post all the kind of legal detail about how this stuff was happening. And really, it was a team effort at the beginning, and I really appreciate all you did.

Krugman: Well, it’s trivial compared with this. Anyway, so great to talk to you. And we may come back on in a few months when hopefully we know a little bit more about how this is playing out. But wow, what a revolution.

Scheppele: I know. I mean, people were dancing in the streets. Just the euphoria and the number of young people. We didn’t lose that generation and they didn’t forget what democracy could be, even though they’d never experienced it. Right? I mean, it’s just amazing. And, you know, we could do that here, right? We can do that.

Krugman: Here’s hoping.

Scheppele: Okay, Paul. So we’ve got our next task cut out for us.

Fire Weather Issues; Pacific System Moving Inland

Third flight of Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket to feature 1st reuse of booster

Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket stands on pad 36 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, on the eve of its launch with the BlueBird 7 satellite. Image: Michael Cain/Spaceflight Now.

Blue Origin plans to launch its third New Glenn rocket from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station shortly before dawn on Sunday, carrying AST SpaceMobile’s BlueBird 7 satellite into low Earth orbit.

The launch of New Glenn 3, or NG-3 for short, marks a critical milestone for Blue Origin’s heavy-lift rocket. The booster, ‘Never Tell Me the Odds’, previously launched in November 2025 and successfully touched down on the company’s ocean-going landing platform, ‘Jacklyn’.

Liftoff of the liquid methane and liquid hydrogen fueled rocket from pad 36 is scheduled during a two-hour launch window that opens Sunday, April 19 at 6:45 a.m. EDT (1045 UTC). The rocket will take a south-easterly trajectory on departure from the Space Coast.

U.S. Space Force meteorologists forecast a 90-percent change of acceptable weather for the rocket’s launch.

Spaceflight Now will have live coverage of the launch starting an hour prior to liftoff.

While much of the booster is being reused, Blue Origin CEO Dave Limp said the engines are not the same as the ones that powered the rocket to deliver NASA’s EscaPADE satellites to orbit.

“With our first refurbished booster we elected to replace all seven engines and test out a few upgrades including a thermal protection system on one of the engine nozzles,” Limp wrote in an April 13 post on social media. “We plan to use the engines we flew for NG-2 on future flights.”

Blue Origin became just the second company, after SpaceX, to successfully land an orbital class rocket booster in a vertical descent.

Both companies use remotely-operated landing vessels to recover their boosters. SpaceX also has two landing pads in Florida, along with one in California. Blue Origin hasn’t announced plans for an on-shore landing pad just yet.

Blue Origin said it’s designing its boosters to support up to 25 flights each, but it’s unclear if that will include reusing the same set of engines 25 times along with the rest of the booster structure.

BlueBird 7 is the second satellite in AST SpaceMobile’s next-generation satellite constellation and is designed to support space-based cellular broadband for commercial and government customers. NG-3 will carry a single so-called Block 2 satellite, but future New Glenn mission can loft up to eight of the satellites, which feature an antenna and solar planel array, spanning 2,400 square feet.

“We remain on track to achieve our target of deploying 45 to 60 satellites into low Earth orbit by the end of this year,” AST Spacemobile’s Chairman and CEO Abel Avellan said in an earning call in March. “To support our launch cadence during 2026, we expect the New Glenn booster to be reused every 30 days.”

New Glenn stands 321 feet tall at its seaside pad at Launch Complex 36 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Base on Florida’s Space Coast. Image: Michael Cain/Spaceflight Now.

Reading List 04/18/2026

Path Robotics’ welding quadruped, via Nima Gard on Twitter.

Welcome to the reading list, a weekly roundup of news and links related to buildings, infrastructure, and industrial technology. This week we look at a quadruped welding robot, the China Shock 2.0, transformer startups, China’s mysteriously moving satellites, and more. Roughly 2/3rds of the reading list is paywalled, so for full access become a paid subscriber.

No essay this week, but working on a more involved piece about construction costs in the US and around the world that should be out next week.

War in Iran

The US has blockaded the Strait of Hormuz, preventing Iranian ships from transiting the strait. “On Monday, the United States imposed its own naval blockade, intent on ending Iran’s dominance of the waterway and cutting off its oil income by blocking all traffic to and from its ports…Since the U.S. blockade took effect, no ships linked to Iran have been spotted leaving the region, according to the vessel‑tracking company Kpler.” [NYT] Negotiations between the US and Iran are apparently ongoing, but the strait seems to be closed as of this writing. [BBC]

The strait’s closure continues to disrupt supply chains around the world: Russia has imposed export controls on helium [Reuters], airlines continue to be squeezed by the high cost of jet fuel [WSJ], and a Japanese bathroom manufacturer shut down production due to a lack of glue. [Nikkei Asia]

Thanks to the war, GPS signals are being jammed across the region. One consequence? Food delivery drivers are having trouble delivering their orders. [Rest of World]

The Saudi East-West oil pipeline being used to bypass the Strait of Hormuz had been damaged by an Iranian drone attack, but now appears to be back online. [Reuters]

Housing

Homeownership rates by state in the US. Some of these figures surprise me: it’s not hard to understand why California and New York might have low homeownership rates due to the high costs of real estate, but Georgia, Texas, and North Dakota being on the low end and West Virginia being on the high end are more surprising to me. [X]

Also on the subject of home ownership, the White House released a report on “Rebuilding and Protecting the American Dream of Homeownership.” It looks at various causes of high housing prices in the US, and concludes with some recommendations for states and local jurisdictions to reduce housing costs:

  • Unleashing manufacturing innovation: “...align codes with accepted standards for modular, prefabricated, panelized, and other off-site built housing.”

  • Streamlining the stages of homebuilding: “...create a fast-track process for all housing developments that features capped timelines and permit fees, appropriate and justifiable impact fees, third-party inspections, and an expedited appeal process that ensures faster and less arbitrary dispute resolution.”

  • Protecting consumer choice and private property rights: “...curtail gratuitous mandates that restrict housing supply, such as restrictions on the number of units that can be built in any given time period, costly green energy building requirements, and discriminatory labor rules.

Most of these seem like reasonable ideas to me. [White House]

Manufacturing

The Pentagon wants to get US auto manufacturers involved in weapons production, as the wars in Ukraine and Iran run down ordnance stockpiles. This was widely done during WWII, but it’s not obvious how easily today’s car manufacturers could pivot. [WSJ]

Also on the subject of weapons manufacturing, Detroit is angling to be the epicenter of a new US drone manufacturing industry. “Thanks to ramped-up military spending on drones and their proliferation in civilian uses, the market for American-made unmanned aerial systems is expected to grow to more than $50 billion by 2030, from $5 billion this year…Companies are scrambling to build a supply chain from scratch, and states are vying to be at the center of it. In July, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, a Democrat, issued an executive directive calling for a statewide effort to scale up “advanced air mobility” manufacturing, which includes drones and electric planes.” [NYT]

Tulsa, Oklahoma is building the first aluminum smelter built in the US in 50 years, which would double(!) US smelting capacity. [WSJ] Related, this Breakthrough Institute Piece on aluminum and China’s manufacturing prowess has an interesting graphic showing which materials require the most electricity to produce. Titanium requires way more electricity, and electric arc steel requires way less electricity, than I realized. [Breakthrough]

When I looked at welding automation a few years ago, one of the startups I highlighted trying to push automated welding forward was Path Robotics, which at the time was developing a system that could automatically plan out a welding path based on computer vision and a CAD model it had been provided. Now the company just introduced an automated welding system mounted to a robot dog. The utility of this isn’t amazingly obvious to me — I think most welding is probably done in repeatable locations where the dog is unnecessary, in locations that would be tricky for a dog to access, or require some kind of workholding that this doesn’t seem equipped with — but it’s cool nonetheless. [X]

A cool short video clip showing manufacturing of wooden propellers using Blanchard-style pattern-tracing lathes. [X]

Slate Auto, the Jeff Bezos-backed startup that wants to build a no-frills EV truck, raised another $650 million, bringing its total funding to $1.4 billion. [TechCrunch]

Read more

Saturday 18 April 1663

Up betimes and to my office, where all the morning. At noon to dinner. With us Mr. Creed, who has been deeply engaged at the office this day about the ending of his accounts, wherein he is most unhappy to have to do with a company of fools who after they have signed his accounts and made bills upon them yet dare not boldly assert to the Treasurer that they are satisfied with his accounts. Hereupon all dinner, and walking in the garden the afternoon, he and I talking of the ill management of our office, which God knows is very ill for the King’s advantage. I would I could make it better.

In the evening to my office, and at night home to supper and bed.

Read the annotations

The Space Force’s ‘commercial first’ strategy in action with Col. Tim Trimailo

In this episode of Space Minds, Mike Gruss talks with Col. Tim Trimailo on how the Space Force is working with industry. They discuss what the service wants to see […]

The post The Space Force’s ‘commercial first’ strategy in action with Col. Tim Trimailo appeared first on SpaceNews.

Links 4/18/26

Links for you. Science:

C.D.C. Pauses Testing for Rabies and Pox Viruses
A deadly bacterial disease is returning, doctors warn, as vaccination rates fall
A botanist searches for the seeds of the rare Death Valley Sage
RFK Jr.’s Junk Science Diet
The Future of Sex as a Biological Variable in Health Research
Trump Slashed Science Funding. Now the U.S. Could Face a Costly Brain Drain.

Other:

Patriarchal theocratic white nationalism is risen
Nick Fuentes’s Strategy is Working: Viral clips of the far-right white supremacist are growing his audience.
Viktor Orban’s problems undercut Trump’s new world order
Young People Are Falling Behind, but Not Because of AI. The case that AI is already stealing young people’s jobs is based on a statistical mirage.
Trump’s Antifa Terror: Even as war rages across the Middle East, raising fears that Iran could activate sleeper cells in the U.S. and Europe, the Trump administration is quietly working to designate antifa as a top counterterrorism priority—despite the protestations of experts who say this is a pretext for targeting domestic dissent.
‘You Can’t Defeat the Robots!’: Baseball’s AI Strike Zone Is Must-Watch Television
Trump is taking charge of his own memorials
There’s No App for That
Evidence of insider trading on Iran war grows
Paul McCartney Banned From Reddit After Promoting Himself in Paul McCartney Subreddit
Regime change in Cuba could benefit wealthy Republicans
Donald Trump Isn’t Sounding Like Himself. And that’s terrifying
America Is Used to Hiding Its Wars. Trump Is Doing the Opposite.
AI accused of ‘unjust exploitation’ as bots reprint entire books
The Epstein Emails Show #MeToo Never Stood a Chance
A Right to Full-Time Scheduling
MOAR BELOW!

Papers, Please: The toll of age verification laws on digital sex work
The Strategic Defeat of the United States
Think Nothing of It
The Secret Iran Intel That Terrified Dems
The Profession That Does Not Exist
Company backed by Trump sons looks to sell drone interceptors to Gulf states being attacked by Iran
On Elon Musk and Legal Arbitrage. A jaded lesson from revisiting a missed prediction
A New Approach to Algebra in 8th Grade Seems to Produce Big Benefits
Restricting Some Speech For Therapists is a Good Thing, Actually
The Generational Divide
There’s Another Big Reason Trump Is Stuck in the Gulf
The far-right Christians pushing Trump’s war — to bring on the apocalypse
In Hungarian election, Trump and Putin are backing Viktor Orban
Trump admin proposing ‘catastrophic’ cuts to the National Park Service

That was then, this is not now?

The 1941 Anglo-Soviet invasion destroyed Reza Shah — but not the Pahlavi state.  The two Allies — joined by the United States in December 1941 — realized that the Iranian state could be useful in achieving the two goals for which they had invaded the country: physical control over oil — the British nightmare in World War II, even more so than in World War I, was loss of these vital supplies: and a land “corridor” to the Soviet Union…To facilitate the flow of both oil to Britain and supplies to the Soviet Union, the Allies found it expedient to remove Reza Shah but to preserve his state…the Allies kept his state but engineered his removal in part to curry much-needed favor among Iranians.  “The Persians,” he wrote, “expect that we should at least save them from the Shah’s tyranny as compensation for invading their country.”

That is from Ervand Abrahamian’s A History of Modern Iran.

The post That was then, this is not now? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Saturday assorted links

1. Cato Handbook on affordability.

2. Are first-generation college students overrated?

3. No Detectable Economic Effect of Extreme Heat After Correcting for Dependence.  Here is analysis from Claude 4.7, link now fixed.

4. When Hayek visited Brazil.

5. AI and the early history of electricity.  Good claims.

6. Betting on how well various pundits predict the future.

7. On Jensen.

8. Ross Douthat (NYT) on lessons from Hungary.

The post Saturday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

 

Pete Hegseth Nailed It. No Really.

You’ve probably seen the story about how, at a DOD presentation, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth quoted what he apparently thought was a bible verse but was in fact the faux biblicalism delivered by Samuel L. Jackson’s character, Jules Winnfield, in Pulp Fiction. There’s a lot here. Yes, the faux godly Hegseth should really be a bit more versed in the bible. But it’s really perfectly apt that he’s not. If you remember, Winnfield is a hitman, a killer, a man of meaningless violence. He wraps his murders in stylized bible verse imitations to give them some mix of giving them retributional ooomph and just for kicks. Is there any better description of Pete Hegseth? I can’t think of one. Hegseth’s brand of Christian nationalism is a permission structure for domination and violence. The biblical text is a source of handy quotes to the extent it advances those aims. But he’s neither smart enough nor serious enough to mine the text in any serious way. He’s just a different version of Jules Winnfield.

Reading bleg

What is the best and most sophisticated defense of architectural modernism, both from an aesthetic and a social point of view?

I thank you all in advance for your wisdom.

The post Reading bleg appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

April 17, 2026

This morning, after a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon took effect Thursday, Iran announced the Strait of Hormuz was open to commercial ships. Israel has been bombing southern Lebanon, where Iran-backed Hezbollah militants operate, and Iran’s leadership has said it would not recognize a ceasefire with the United States until Israel’s bombing of Lebanon stopped.

With Iran’s announcement the strait was open, Trump hit the media circle, announcing through interviews and social media posts that the war with Iran was over and peace talks were all but done, although Trump said the U.S. Navy will continue to blockade Iran’s ports. Ron Filipkowski of MeidasTouch noted that Trump posted thirteen times in an hour claiming total victory.

He claimed that Iranian leaders had “agreed to everything,” including the removal of its enriched uranium, and that “Iran has agreed never to close the Strait of Hormuz again.” He promised that Iran had agreed to end its nuclear program forever and that talks “should go very quickly.” He said that the United States would work with Iran at “a leisurely pace” to retrieve and capture Iran’s highly enriched uranium and that Iran would receive no money for its cooperation despite a report from Axios that the U.S. is considering the release of $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Iran giving up its stockpile of enriched uranium.

Right on cue the stock market jumped and the price of oil futures dropped. Trump declared the breakthrough was “A GREAT AND BRILLIANT DAY FOR THE WORLD!” and asked why media outlets questioning the alleged deal didn’t “just say, at the right time, JOB WELL DONE, MR. PRESIDENT?”

But, as Ashley Ahn of the New York Times reported, Iranian officials’ interpretation of events was quite different from Trump’s characterization. Iran’s top negotiator, speaker of parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, posted on social media that Trump had made seven claims in an hour, and all seven of them were false. Iran rejected Trump’s claim that it had agreed to hand over its uranium stockpile, and also said that the strait was open for commercial vessels—not military ships—but would close again if the U.S. blockade continued.

Tonight on Air Force One, after the stock market closed, when asked if Iran would turn over its nuclear material, Trump said: “We’re taking it. We’re taking it. Very simple. We’re taking it. With Iran. We’re going in with Iran. We’re taking it. We will have it. I don’t call it boots on the ground. We’ll take it after the agreement is signed. After there— there’s a very big difference. Before and after. BC. It’s before, and after. And after the agreement is signed, it’s a lot different than before. We would have taken it. If we didn’t have an agreement, we would take it. But I don’t think we’ll have to.”

When a reporter asked Trump whether he would extend the ceasefire “if you don’t have a deal by Wednesday” when it ends, the president answered: “I don’t know. Maybe not. Maybe I won’t extend it. But the blockade is gonna remain. But maybe I won’t extend it. So you have a blockade, and unfortunately we’ll have to start dropping bombs again.”

While being able to announce the end of the Iran war—at least for now—relieves Trump’s immediate crisis, there are many others in the wings. This evening, an article in The Atlantic by Sarah Fitzpatrick portrayed Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director Kash Patel as a poor manager who is terrified he is going to lose his job and whose overuse of alcohol, tendency to disappear, and purges of FBI agents who had investigated Trump endangers our national security. Fitzpatrick notes that Patel has kept his job thanks to his willingness to use the FBI to target Trump’s perceived enemies, but his focus on things like whether FBI merchandise looks “fierce” has made officials think “we don’t have a real functioning FBI director.”

Writ even larger than the behavior of the director of the FBI is the growing focus on corruption in the Trump administration. On Wednesday, House Democrats announced they have created a task force to reinforce ethics rules and highlight the Trump family’s self-dealing when in office. The task force is made up of members from across the country and from different caucuses in the Democratic Party. Representative Joe Morelle, a fellow New Yorker and close ally of House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries who is the top-ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, will lead the task force along with Kevin Mullin of California, Delia C. Ramirez of Illinois, and Nikema Williams of Georgia.

Also on the task force are the top-ranking Democrat on the House Oversight and Reform Committee, Robert Garcia of California, and the top-ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, as well as Congressional Progressive Caucus members Greg Casar of Texas and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and the head of the moderate New Democrat Coalition, Brad Schneider of Illinois.

They will be looking into self-dealing like Trump’s current negotiations with the Internal Revenue Service to settle the $10 billion lawsuit he filed against it after an IRS contractor during his first term leaked some of his tax information, along with that of more than 400,000 other taxpayers, to two news outlets during Trump’s first term. Trump, along with his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, said the leak caused “reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump, and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing.”

Peter Nicholas of NBC News noted in February that $10 billion is more than 80% of last year’s IRS budget.

Fatima Hussein of the Associated Press notes that several watchdog organizations have filed briefs challenging Trump’s lawsuit. Democracy Forward argued that the case is “extraordinary because the President controls both sides of the litigation, which raises the prospect of collusive litigation tactics,” and that “the conflicts of interest make it uncertain whether the Department of Justice will zealously defend the public [treasury] in the same way that it has against other plaintiffs claiming damages for related events.”

On Wednesday, Democratic representatives Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Dave Min of California, along with Democratic senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and minority leader Chuck Schumer of New York, introduced the Ban Presidential Plunder of Taxpayer Funds Act to ban presidents and vice presidents from stealing taxpayer money.

Pointing to the Department of Justice’s recent settlement of $1.2 million with Trump’s former national security advisor Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russians before Trump took office, after he sued for $50 million on the grounds that the criminal case against him was malicious prosecution, Raskin warned of an “emerging MAGA grift of suing the government as a ‘plaintiff’ on bogus grounds and then settling the suit as a ‘defendant’ for big bucks.”

“Over the past 15 months, we have seen unprecedented corruption from this administration, but this new abuse of power of providing huge cash payments to ‘settle’ baseless lawsuits brought forward by Trump and his allies is a new low. The bill that Senator Warren, Leader Schumer, Ranking Member Raskin, and I are bringing forward would stop this backdoor bribery and bring some accountability back to the federal government,” said Representative Min.

In February, when the lawsuit came to public attention, Trump noted that it seemed odd for him to be negotiating with himself over the issue, but told reporters that he would give whatever monies he was awarded to charity. “We could make it a substantial amount,” he said. “Nobody would care because it’s going to go to numerous very good charities.”

Notes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/17/world/middleeast/trump-iran-war-truth-social-posts.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/04/17/hormuz-strait-reopens-iran-us-war/

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-war-us-trump-strait-of-hormuz-diplomacy-ceasefire/

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/16/trump-israel-lebanon-ceasefire-iran-war.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/04/kash-patel-fbi-director-drinking-absences/686839/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/apr/17/middle-east-crisis-live-news-israel-lebanon-ceasefire-iran-war-us-latest-updates

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-macron-strait-of-hormuz-iran-war-trump-b2959902.html

https://www.axios.com/2026/04/17/iran-us-deal-20-billion-frozen-funds-uranium

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-democrats-attempt-anti-corruption-message-to-gain-traction-against-trump

Meidas+
Today in Politics, Bulletin 351. 4/17/26
… Trump made 13 posts in an hour today on Truth Social claiming total victory in the Iran War with the concepts of a peace agreement allegedly imminent. However, as with all things Trump, the reality and details never seem to match up with his claims. It appears that may be the case yet again…
Read more

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/17/world-reacts-to-the-opening-of-the-strait-of-hormuz-amid-us-iran-conflict

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/25/irs-contractor-leaked-hundreds-of-thousands-of-returns-00205980

https://apnews.com/article/trump-treasury-irs-lawsuit-tax-whistleblower-c710244db618b066f3070a65e75820a5

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trumps-10-billion-suit-government-go-sideways-rcna257483

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-report-justice-department-settles-lawsuit-from-trump-ally-michael-flynn-for-1-2-million

https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/raskin-warren-schumer-min-introduce-new-bill-to-stop-president-vp-from-abusing-power-to-steal-taxpayer-funds

https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1156947/Strait-of-Hormuz-open-says-Iranian-foreign-minister

Bluesky:

meidastouch.com/post/3mjphsktvvs27

atrupar.com/post/3mjqksok2tp2h

atrupar.com/post/3mjqky7nhiv26

Share

The diffusion of space warfare: commercial satellites play a role in (everyone's) battlefield intelligence

There's now a vibrant market for real-time commercial satellite photos.  

Defense One has the story from the Persian Gulf:

US must adjust to Iran’s use of commercial satellite photos, Space Command says CENTCOM’s declaration of “space superiority” hasn’t prevented Tehran from putting space to use.
By Thomas Novelly

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado—Iran’s use of commercial space imagery to strike U.S. and allied targets will force the Pentagon to adjust, the head of U.S. Space Command said.

“We have to recognize that the rest of the world can now see the entire planet transparently and almost 24/7 and so we have to be able to operate in that environment successfully,” Gen. Stephen Whiting, the head of U.S. Space Command told reporters Tuesday during the Space Symposium conference here. "

Birthright Citizenship and Youth Crime

This paper studies the impact of birthright citizenship on youth crime. We leverage a German reform which automatically granted birthright citizenship to eligible immigrant children born in Germany after January 1, 2000 and administrative crime data from three federal states. We find that immigrant youth who acquired citizenship at birth are substantially less likely to engage in criminal activity, with estimates indicating a 70% reduction in crime. These results are particularly relevant in light of ongoing debates in the U.S. about abolishing birthright citizenship. Our findings suggest that inclusive citizenship policies can reduce crime and its associated costs, which in turn could strengthen social cohesion.

That is from a new NBER working paper by Leander AndresStefan BauernschusterGordon B. DahlHelmut Rainer Simone Schüller.

The post Birthright Citizenship and Youth Crime appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

SpaceX makes 600th Falcon booster landing during West Coast Starlink mission

File: SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket stands at Space Launch Complex 4 East at Vandenberg Space Force Base ahead of the Starlink 17-31 mission on March 13, 2026. Image: SpaceX

SpaceX completed its 600th Falcon booster landing during a Starlink mission Sunday. The Falcon 9 rocket departed Vandenberg Space Force Base on a south-southwesterly trajectory at 9:03:09 a.m. PDT (12:03:09 pm EDT / 1603:09 UTC).

The Starlink 17-22 mission added another 25 broadband internet satellites into the company’s low Earth orbit constellation that consists of more than 10,200 spacecraft.

A launch attempt on Saturday was postponed. SpaceX typically does not explain the cause of such delays.

SpaceX used Falcon 9 first stage booster B1097, which was flying for a seventh time. It previously launched Sentinel-6B, Twilight, and five previous batches of Starlink satellites.

A little more eight minutes after liftoff, B1097 landed on the SpaceX drone ship, ‘Of Course I Still Love You.’ It was the 191st landing on this vessel.

Follow-Up Regarding App Store Reviews, Which Are Definitely Busted

I wrote yesterday:

And the apps that do the right thing — like Godier’s Current — and never solicit a review like a needy hustler are penalized.

On Mastodon, Steven Troughton-Smith responded:

Review prompts are the difference between a great app getting five positive reviews, and thousands of positive reviews. I would never recommend to a developer to not implement the APIs. It’s App Store Editorial suicide for most apps, since Apple tends to only pick things up when they have that body of review data.

I can see how my describing not prompting for reviews as “the right thing” looks like I’m suggesting developers should not prompt for reviews. That wasn’t my intention.

You have to play the game as the game stands, and Apple controls the game. And in the game as it stands, apps need 5-star reviews to gain traction in the App Store, perhaps especially so for apps in crowded categories. And for most apps, the only way to achieve that is through prompting. But the right thing to do, for the user experience in the app, is never to prompt for reviews.

That’s the problem with how Apple has set this up — to be competitive, apps need to do the wrong thing. I’m a competitive bastard. If I had an app in the App Store today, I’d probably prompt for reviews. I don’t begrudge developers who do it today. That’s the game. I admire developers who refuse to play this part of the game. It’s noble. But it’s not a winning strategy. I want Apple to fix the game — that’s the only real solution.

The system is so twisted that even Apple itself begs for these reviews from its own apps, even the system apps built into iOS. When else does Apple ever ask for anything? It looks needy and pathetic. Real Gil Gunderson vibes.

The funny thing is, this morning while I was reading the Mastodon thread with Troughton-Smith’s post, Ivory prompted me for a rating. Which I dutifully submitted. 5 stars, of course. Which brings me to another follow-up point. A few readers have emailed to object to the argument that it hurts developers to give apps anything short of a 5-star rating. (A few of these readers are from Germany, no surprise.) It’s logical, I agree, that a 4-star rating ought to be considered fair and just for a good app with obvious room for improvement. But anything short of 5 stars pulls down any good app’s average, because the overwhelming majority of users who rate apps only ever assign 5 stars for apps they like, or 1 star for apps they’re angry about. In a system where the overwhelming majority of users only ever assigns 1 or 5 stars, assigning 4 stars is effectively a mildly negative review. That sucks. Apple should fix it. But until they do (which, let’s face it, they probably won’t), obstinately ignoring that this is how App Store ratings work does not help good apps get the attention you think you’re helping them get with a 4-star rating.

 ★ 

Apple’s Developer Guidelines for Ratings and Review Prompts

Apple Design:

Avoid pestering people. Repeated rating requests can be irritating, and may even negatively influence people’s opinion of your app. Consider allowing at least a week or two between requests, prompting again after people demonstrate additional engagement with your experience.

Prefer the system-provided prompt. iOS, iPadOS, and macOS offer a consistent, nonintrusive way for apps and games to request ratings and reviews. When you identify places in your experience where it makes sense to ask for feedback, the system checks for previous feedback and — if there isn’t any — displays an in-app prompt that asks for a rating and an optional written review. People can supply feedback or dismiss the prompt with a single tap or click; they can also opt out of receiving these prompts for all apps they have installed. The system automatically limits the display of the prompt to three occurrences per app within a 365-day period. For developer guidance, see RequestReviewAction.

There are a lot of apps that eschew a lot of these guidelines. I mean, how do you avoid pestering people when the entire idea of an alert asking for a rating/review is, by nature, pestering? It’s an oxymoron, like saying “Don’t pester people when you pester them.”

I actually knew about the system setting to opt out of these prompts. On iOS it’s in Settings → Apps → App Store: In-App Ratings & Reviews. On MacOS, it’s in the App Store app’s Settings window. On both platforms, it’s on by default. This is one of several settings that I would change, personally, but choose not to, as a critic / pundit / know-it-all, so as to have more of the standard experience that most users get. If you’re annoyed by these prompts though, you should feel free to turn them off.

 ★ 

Emergent Ventures India, 16th cohort

Roumak Das, a grade 11 student from West Bengal, and Samik Goyal, a 12th grader from Patiala, received their grants to travel to the International Olympiad in Artificial Intelligence 2025 in Beijing, where Roumak won a gold medal and Samik a silver medal. Roumak’s grant also supports his college applications, and Samik’s grant supports SPOI, dedicated to teaching informatics to school students.

Ishaan Gangwani, 17, received his grant to develop InkVell, an AI-native LaTeX editor, and to support his travel to the International Olympiad in Artificial Intelligence 2025 in Beijing.

Ronald Abraham received a career development grant for Veeraa, to build a crowdfunding and growth platform for India’s community leaders.

Tristan Wagner received his grant to explore low-cost autoinjectors for treating anaphylaxis and snakebite envenoming in India.

Michael Grasa received his grant to test a transparent, falsifiability-first approach to decoding the Indus Valley script, releasing versioned overlays and open datasets for replication or refutation.

Jasraj Budigam, 16, received his grant to develop CapNav-Lite, an adaptive AI navigation system that personalizes power-wheelchair control to each user within minutes on everyday hardware.

Mannat Kaur, 17, freshman at Stanford University, received her grant to continue developing research on wastewater recycling and its integration into the built environment and low-carbon housing.

Vineela Upadhyayula, Hari Krishna Upadhyayula, and Phani Madhav Upadhyayula received their grant for NeuraEase, to build a wearable-driven AI detection and management of acute dysregulation events in neurodivergence and neurological disorders, including autistic meltdowns.

Arnav Kumar and Gavneesh, cofounders of Vyobha Aerospace, received their grant to build regional eVTOL aircraft with fractional ownership at the cost of a car.

Aditya Raj Chopra, a high school senior, received a general career development grant.

Ansh Mishra, 17, received his grant to build reliable and accessible bionic prosthetic hands.

Vasu Dubey, 22, received his grant to build a machine-learning-based medical device for speech restoration in laryngectomy patients.

Snehadeep Kumar, 21, received his grant for Nebula Space Organisation, to build ultra-low-cost Earth-imaging CubeSats and a global imagery platform that makes space data accessible to everyone.

Uttam Singh and Ayush Das received their grant for Nakshatra Maps, to help people navigate indoor and outdoor public spaces with dynamic hyperlocal interactive maps, AR navigation, and smart emergency evacuation.

Mankaran Singh received his grant to build frictionless human-robot interaction for machines operating in human-centric environments.

Sommaiya Angrish, 21, an alt Hindi-pop musician, received his grant to work on his third album, rooted in his personal healing journey.

Achyut Tiwari, 24, received his grant for GeoLiquefy, an AI system forecasting earthquake-related soil liquefaction from geotechnical data for engineers, insurers, and risk assessors.

Devayan Das, 19, a biotech undergraduate, received his grant to develop dissolvable tissue culture nutrient blocks that simplify lab workflows and turn lab prep into a plug-and-play process.

Ayush Kale, a materials engineer, received his grant for EarthSprint Solutions, to transform agricultural waste into low-carbon, high-performance cement blocks.

Mohd Fahad Eqbal, 24, received his grant for Chakraswap, to scale an affordable battery swap network for e-rickshaw drivers.

Satyamedh Hulyalkar received his grant to develop a LoRa-based self-healing mesh network for agricultural and monitoring use cases.

Shivam Parashar received his grant for GreenScore, to build an industrial effluent monitoring system combining machine learning and IoT to keep Indian rivers clean.

Anand Unni received his grant for Nayaneethi Policy Collective, to develop a public policy curriculum and a community of public policy thinkers and analysts in Kerala, and strengthen the demand side of public policy.

Those unfamiliar with Emergent Ventures can learn more here and here. The EV India announcement is here. More about the winners of EV India second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth cohorts. To apply for EV India, use the EV application, click the “Apply Now” button and select India from the “My Project Will Affect” drop-down menu.

And here is Nabeel’s AI engine for other EV winners. Here are the other EV cohorts.

If you are interested in supporting the India tranche of Emergent Ventures, please write to me or to Shruti at srajagopalan@mercatus.gmu.edu.

TC: This post is from Shruti, and I thank her for her amazing work on this!

The post Emergent Ventures India, 16th cohort appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Adding a new content type to my blog-to-newsletter tool

Agentic Engineering Patterns >

Here's an example of a deceptively short prompt that got a quite a lot of work done in a single shot.

First, some background. I send out a free Substack newsletter around once a week containing content copied-and-pasted from my blog. I'm effectively using Substack as a lightweight way to allow people to subscribe to my blog via email.

I generate the newsletter with my blog-to-newsletter tool - an HTML and JavaScript app that fetches my latest content from this Datasette instance and formats it as rich text HTML, which I can then copy to my clipboard and paste into the Substack editor. Here's a detailed explanation of how that works.

I recently added a new type of content to my blog to capture content that I post elsewhere, which I called "beats". These include things like releases of my open source projects, new tools that I've built, museums that I've visited (from niche-museums.com) and other external content.

I wanted to include these in the generated newsletter. Here's the prompt I ran against the simonw/tools repository that hosts my blog-to-newsletter tool, using Claude Code on the web.

Clone simonw/simonwillisonblog from github to /tmp for reference

Update blog-to-newsletter.html to include beats that have descriptions - similar to how the Atom everything feed on the blog works

Run it with python -m http.server and use `uvx rodney --help` to test it - compare what shows up in the newsletter with what's on the homepage of https://simonwillison.net
This got me the exact solution I needed. Let's break down the prompt.

Clone simonw/simonwillisonblog from github to /tmp for reference

I use this pattern a lot. Coding agents can clone code from GitHub, and the best way to explain a problem is often to have them look at relevant code. By telling them to clone to /tmp I ensure they don't accidentally end up including that reference code in their own commit later on.

The simonw/simonwillisonblog repository contains the source code for my Django-powered simonwillison.net blog. This includes the logic and database schema for my new "beats" feature.

Update blog-to-newsletter.html to include beats that have descriptions - similar to how the Atom everything feed on the blog works

Referencing blog-to-newsletter.html is all I need here to tell Claude which of the 200+ HTML apps in that simonw/tools repo it should be modifying.

Beats are automatically imported from multiple sources. Often they aren't very interesting - a dot-release bug fix for one of my smaller open source projects, for example.

My blog includes a way for me to add additional descriptions to any beat, which provides extra commentary but also marks that beat as being more interesting than those that I haven't annotated in some way.

I already use this as a distinction to decide which beats end up in my site's Atom feed. Telling Claude to imitate that saves me from having to describe the logic in any extra detail.

Run it with python -m http.server and use `uvx rodney --help` to test it - compare what shows up in the newsletter with what's on the homepage of https://simonwillison.net

Coding agents always work best if they have some kind of validation mechanism they can use to test their own work.

In this case I wanted Claude Code to actively check that the changes it made to my tool would correctly fetch and display the latest data.

I reminded it to use python -m http.server as a static server because I've had issues in the past with applications that fetch data and break when served as a file from disk instead of a localhost server. In this particular case that may not have been necessary, but my prompting muscle memory has python -m http.server baked in at this point!

I described the uvx rodney --help trick in the agentic manual testing chapter. Rodney is browser automation software that can be installed using uvx, and that has --help output designed to teach an agent everything it needs to know in order to use the tool.

I figured that telling Claude to compare the results in the newsletter to the content of my blog's homepage would be enough for it to confidently verify that the new changes were working correctly, since I had recently posted content that matched the new requirements.

You can see the full session here, or if that doesn't work I have an alternative transcript showing all of the individual tool calls.

The resulting PR made exactly the right change. It added an additional UNION clause to the SQL query that fetched the blog's content, filtering out draft beats and beats that have nothing in their note column:

...
union all
select
  id,
  'beat' as type,
  title,
  created,
  slug,
  'No HTML' as html,
  json_object(
    'created', date(created),
    'beat_type', beat_type,
    'title', title,
    'url', url,
    'commentary', commentary,
    'note', note
  ) as json,
  url as external_url
from blog_beat
where coalesce(note, '') != '' and is_draft = 0
union all
...
And it figured out a mapping of beat types to their formal names, presumably derived from the Django ORM definition that it read while it was exploring the reference codebase:
const beatTypeDisplay = {
  release: 'Release',
  til: 'TIL',
  til_update: 'TIL updated',
  research: 'Research',
  tool: 'Tool',
  museum: 'Museum'
};
Telling agents to use another codebase as reference is a powerful shortcut for communicating complex concepts with minimal additional information needed in the prompt.

Tags: ai, llms, prompt-engineering, coding-agents, ai-assisted-programming, generative-ai, agentic-engineering, github

Join us at PyCon US 2026 in Long Beach - we have new AI and security tracks this year

This year's PyCon US is coming up next month from May 13th to May 19th, with the core conference talks from Friday 15th to Sunday 17th and tutorial and sprint days either side. It's in Long Beach, California this year, the first time PyCon US has come to the West Coast since Portland, Oregon in 2017 and the first time in California since Santa Clara in 2013.

If you're based in California this is a great opportunity to catch up with the Python community, meet a whole lot of interesting people and learn a ton of interesting things.

In addition to regular PyCon programming we have two new dedicated tracks at the conference this year: an AI track on Friday and a Security track on Saturday.

The AI program was put together by track chairs Silona Bonewald (CitableAI) and Zac Hatfield-Dodds (Anthropic). I'll be an in-the-room chair this year, introducing speakers and helping everything run as smoothly as possible.

Here's the AI track schedule in full:

(And here's how I scraped that as a Markdown list from the schedule page using Claude Code and Rodney.)

You should come to PyCon US!

I've been going to PyCon for over twenty years now - I first went back in 2005. It's one of my all-time favourite conference series. Even as it's grown to more than 2,000 attendees PyCon US has remained a heavily community-focused conference - it's the least corporate feeling large event I've ever attended.

The talks are always great, but it's the add-ons around the talks that really make it work for me. The lightning talks slots are some of the most heavily attended sessions. The PyLadies auction is always deeply entertaining. The sprints are an incredible opportunity to contribute directly to projects that you use, coached by their maintainers.

In addition to scheduled talks, the event has open spaces, where anyone can reserve space for a conversation about a topic - effectively PyCon's version of an unconference. I plan to spend a lot of my time in the open spaces this year - I'm hoping to join or instigate sessions about both Datasette and agentic engineering.

I'm on the board of the Python Software Foundation, and PyCon US remains one of our most important responsibilities - in the past it's been a key source of funding for the organization, but it's also core to our mission to "promote, protect, and advance the Python programming language, and to support and facilitate the growth of a diverse and international community of Python programmers".

If you do come to Long Beach, we'd really appreciate it if you could book accommodation in the official hotel block, for reasons outlined in this post on the PSF blog.

Tags: conferences, open-source, pycon, python, ai, psf

WorkOS FGA: The Authorization Layer for AI Agents

My thanks to WorkOS for sponsoring last week at DF. Every AI agent demo looks magical, but most hit a wall in enterprise deployment. It’s not model quality or latency. It’s authorization. Authentication proves an agent’s identity. Authorization defines its blast radius.

The winners in enterprise AI won’t have the most features. They’ll be the ones enterprises can safely trust. Learn how WorkOS FGA scopes that blast radius with resource-level permissions, and read their deep dive for more.

 ★ 

The best way to see comet R3 PanSTARRS’s long tail is with a camera. The best way to see comet R3 PanSTARRS’s long tail is with a camera.