Americans suffered a litany of horrors thanks to the Trump administration during 2025 – refusal to disburse emergency aid, soaring measles cases, collapsing small businesses, vindictive prosecutions, wanton destruction of the federal government, and (soon) soaring health insurance premiums. But few incidents were more shocking than the two-month siege of Chicago, in which America’s third-largest city was terrorized by a gang of violent, sadistic thugs.
The gang members in question were, of course, agents of the Trump administration, mainly although not all from ICE — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. If you think I’m being hyperbolic in calling them sadistic thugs, read the Chicago Tribune’s long article about Operation Midway Blitz, which describes scene after scene of what went down:
What happened here for more than two months is unlike anything in recent American history: the federal government sending agents dressed for war into neighborhoods of the country’s third-largest city to arrest mostly people who look Latino and to ask questions later. To target people largely on the basis of their skin color, on the presumption that they may be in the country without documentation, or that they may have a criminal record, or an association with a gang.
Trump officials claimed that they were cracking down on violent crime committed by illegal aliens, but their own operation demonstrated, better than any conventional statistical analysis, that claims of an immigrant crime wave are bogus. The Tribune found that “only about 1.5% of those detained for immigration-related reasons had been convicted of a violent felony or sex crime.”
Or consider the spectacular Sept. 30 raid carried out on a South Side apartment building — a building administration officials claimed was a base for a Venezuelan gang. “SWAT teams,” reports ProPublica, “rappelled from a helicopter, knocked down doors and hurled flash-bang grenades. They arrested 37 immigrants, most of them Venezuelans, who authorities say were in the country illegally. Agents also zip-tied and, for several hours, detained many U.S. citizens.” After all that, Federal prosecutors didn’t file charges against a single resident of the building.
And while the ICE tactics are blatantly illegal according to legal experts, they have been allowed by a corrupt Supreme Court that is clearly more intent on enabling authoritarianism than on than protecting the Constitution.
It’s clear that claims about crimes perpetrated by immigrants are just an excuse to inflict a reign of terror. And they’re also part of a much wider pattern of hostility to mostly brown-skinned immigrants that has nothing to do with the stated justifications. I call this IDS – Immigrant Derangement Syndrome – the syndrome of blaming immigrants for everything bad in America. And those bad things include both actual events – such as soaring housing costs – and fantasies that exist only in MAGA’s imagination, such as a wave of violent crime.
Claims about the harm done by immigrants range from the dubious to the ludicrous. At the dubious end, assertions that immigrants are taking away jobs from native-born workers, or depressing their wages, just don’t stand up under scrutiny. All the evidence suggests that foreign-born workers are complements, not substitutes, for native born workers. And as the native-born population ages, we really need immigrant workers, both directly to care for seniors and indirectly to keep the economy growing as the native-born labor force shrinks.
JD Vance claims that immigrants are responsible for soaring housing costs. Yet academic studies of the link between immigration and rents — studies the Trump team itself cites! — show that such effects, if they exist, are small. And any reduction in housing demand caused by mass deportations is surely outweighed by the fall in housing supply as America loses foreign-born construction workers.
Until a few days ago I thought Scott Bessent would easily win the prize for the most absurd anti-immigrant argument of the year after he claimed that high beef prices were due to migrants bringing sick cows into the country. But then Stephen Miller, Trump’s immigration czar, weighed in, claiming that immigration has stalled U.S. technological progress. As many people quickly pointed out, immigrants played key roles in some of the achievements he extolled as proof that we don’t need immigration, such as the moon landing. A brief examination of the origins of the legions of engineers in Silicon Valley shows how insane Miller’s claim is.
Furthermore, IDS isn’t even popular among the broad public. Granted, Biden created an opening for immigrant hostility by failing to adequately secure the border during 2021-2024. As shown in the chart below, this corresponded to a jump in 2023-2024 in the number of Americans who felt that the rate of immigration should fall. But by the end of Biden’s term, the number of border crossings had dropped precipitously, leading to a fall in public concerns about immigration.
Trump’s immigration policy has grown increasingly unpopular as Americans see its brutality in action. According to AP-NORC, by December only 38 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Trump’s handling of immigration, down from 49 percent in March, while 60 percent disapproved.
Immigrant Derangement Syndrome is therefore a top-down phenomenon, not a broad popular movement. It reflects the perverse obsessions of MAGAdom, with racism a key component. If you are an immigrant with brown or black skin, you’re a target regardless of how exemplary your behavior – as the growing attacks against Indian-Americans show.
But I would also serve a warning to MAGAdom: Movements centered on bigotry eventually eat their own. Don’t imagine that your political record will protect you. Consider how JD Vance, while spouting Christian nationalism, has to defend his Yale-educated Indian-American wife from racist, anti-Hindu attacks. Vivek Ramaswamy, the Trump-endorsed Republican senatorial candidate for Ohio, is now pleading for an end to the bigotry and hate directed at him by other Republicans.
And now we have Ben Shapiro, of Jewish descent and a long-time MAGA stalwart, calling out Tucker Carlson for platforming the antisemitic and anti-Indian Nick Fuentes. Because who could have seen the movement’s antisemitic turn coming — other than anyone who knew anything about history?
The good news is that, as I said, IDS is a top-down phenomenon, not a broad popular movement. And in the end, I believe that the basic decency of most Americans will prevail. Many Americans are already sickened by MAGA’s wanton cruelty and bigotry against immigrants, and I believe that their numbers will grow. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Americans will soon understand that hate is too great a burden to bear.
OpenAI kicked off the "reasoning" aka inference-scaling aka Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) revolution in September 2024 with o1 and o1-mini. They doubled down on that with o3, o3-mini and o4-mini in the opening months of 2025 and reasoning has since become a signature feature of models from nearly every other major AI lab.
My favourite explanation of the significance of this trick comes from Andrej Karpathy:
By training LLMs against automatically verifiable rewards across a number of environments (e.g. think math/code puzzles), the LLMs spontaneously develop strategies that look like "reasoning" to humans - they learn to break down problem solving into intermediate calculations and they learn a number of problem solving strategies for going back and forth to figure things out (see DeepSeek R1 paper for examples). [...]
Running RLVR turned out to offer high capability/$, which gobbled up the compute that was originally intended for pretraining. Therefore, most of the capability progress of 2025 was defined by the LLM labs chewing through the overhang of this new stage and overall we saw ~similar sized LLMs but a lot longer RL runs.
Every notable AI lab released at least one reasoning model in 2025. Some labs released hybrids that could be run in reasoning or non-reasoning modes. Many API models now include dials for increasing or decreasing the amount of reasoning applied to a given prompt.
It took me a while to understand what reasoning was useful for. Initial demos showed it solving mathematical logic puzzles and counting the Rs in strawberry - two things I didn't find myself needing in my day-to-day model usage.
It turned out that the real unlock of reasoning was in driving tools. Reasoning models with access to tools can plan out multi-step tasks, execute on them and continue to reason about the results such that they can update their plans to better achieve the desired goal.
Reasoning models are also exceptional at producing and debugging code. The reasoning trick means they can start with an error and step through many different layers of the codebase to find the root cause. I've found even the gnarliest of bugs can be diagnosed by a good reasoner with the ability to read and execute code against even large and complex codebases.
Combine reasoning with tool-use and you get...
The year of agents
I started the year making a prediction that agents were not going to happen. Throughout 2024 everyone was talking about agents but there were few to no examples of them working, further confused by the fact that everyone using the term “agent” appeared to be working from a slightly different definition from everyone else.
By September I’d got fed up of avoiding the term myself due to the lack of a clear definition and decided to treat them as an LLM that runs tools in a loop to achieve a goal. This unblocked me for having productive conversations about them, always my goal for any piece of terminology like that.
I didn’t think agents would happen because I didn’t think the gullibility problem could be solved, and I thought the idea of replacing human staff members with LLMs was still laughable science fiction.
I was half right in my prediction: the science fiction version of a magic computer assistant that does anything you ask of (Her) didn’t materialize...
But if you define agents as LLM systems that can perform useful work via tool calls over multiple steps then agents are here and they are proving to be extraordinarily useful.
The two breakout categories for agents have been for coding and for search.
The Deep Research pattern - where you challenge an LLM to gather information and it churns away for 15+ minutes building you a detailed report - was popular in the first half of the year but has fallen out of fashion now that GPT-5 Thinking (and Google's "AI mode", a significantly better product than their terrible "AI overviews") can produce comparable results in a fraction of the time. I consider this to be an agent pattern, and one that works really well.
The "coding agents" pattern is a much bigger deal.
The year of coding agents and Claude Code
The most impactful event of 2025 happened in February, with the quiet release of Claude Code.
I say quiet because it didn’t even get its own blog post! Anthropic bundled the Claude Code release in as the second item in their post announcing Claude 3.7 Sonnet.
(Why did Anthropic jump from Claude 3.5 Sonnet to 3.7? Because they released a major bump to Claude 3.5 in October 2024 but kept the name exactly the same, causing the developer community to start referring to un-named 3.5 Sonnet v2 as 3.6. Anthropic burned a whole version number by failing to properly name their new model!)
Claude Code is the most prominent example of what I call coding agents - LLM systems that can write code, execute that code, inspect the results and then iterate further.
The major labs all put out their own CLI coding agents in 2025
Vendor-independent options include GitHub Copilot CLI, Amp, OpenCode, OpenHands CLI, and Pi. IDEs such as Zed, VS Code and Cursor invested a lot of effort in coding agent integration as well.
My first exposure to the coding agent pattern was OpenAI's ChatGPT Code Interpreter in early 2023 - a system baked into ChatGPT that allowed it to run Python code in a Kubernetes sandbox.
I was delighted this year when Anthropic finally released their equivalent in September, albeit under the baffling initial name of "Create and edit files with Claude".
In October they repurposed that container sandbox infrastructure to launch Claude Code for web, which I've been using on an almost daily basis ever since.
Claude Code for web is what I call an asynchronous coding agent - a system you can prompt and forget, and it will work away on the problem and file a Pull Request once it's done. OpenAI "Codex cloud" (renamed to "Codex web" in the last week) launched earlier in May 2025. Gemini's entry in this category is called Jules, also launched in May.
I love the asynchronous coding agent category. They're a great answer to the security challenges of running arbitrary code execution on a personal laptop and it's really fun being able to fire off multiple tasks at once - often from my phone - and get decent results a few minutes later.
In 2024 I spent a lot of time hacking on my LLM command-line tool for accessing LLMs from the terminal, all the time thinking that it was weird that so few people were taking CLI access to models seriously - they felt like such a natural fit for Unix mechanisms like pipes.
Maybe the terminal was just too weird and niche to ever become a mainstream tool for accessing LLMs?
Claude Code and friends have conclusively demonstrated that developers will embrace LLMs on the command line, given powerful enough models and the right harness.
It helps that terminal commands with obscure syntax like sed and ffmpeg and bash itself are no longer a barrier to entry when an LLM can spit out the right command for you.
With hindsight, maybe I should have promoted LLM from a side-project to a key focus!
The year of YOLO and the Normalization of Deviance
The default setting for most coding agents is to ask the user for confirmation for almost every action they take. In a world where an agent mistake could wipe your home folder or a malicious prompt injection attack could steal your credentials this default makes total sense.
Anyone who's tried running their agent with automatic confirmation (aka YOLO mode - Codex CLI even aliases --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox to --yolo) has experienced the trade-off: using an agent without the safety wheels feels like a completely different product.
A big benefit of asynchronous coding agents like Claude Code for web and Codex Cloud is that they can run in YOLO mode by default, since there's no personal computer to damage.
I run in YOLO mode all the time, despite being deeply aware of the risks involved. It hasn't burned me yet...
Johann describes the "Normalization of Deviance" phenomenon, where repeated exposure to risky behaviour without negative consequences leads people and organizations to accept that risky behaviour as normal.
This was originally described by sociologist Diane Vaughan as part of her work to understand the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, caused by a faulty O-ring that engineers had known about for years. Plenty of successful launches led NASA culture to stop taking that risk seriously.
Johann argues that the longer we get away with running these systems in fundamentally insecure ways, the closer we are getting to a Challenger disaster of our own.
The year of $200/month subscriptions
ChatGPT Plus's original $20/month price turned out to be a snap decision by Nick Turley based on a Google Form poll on Discord. That price point has stuck firmly ever since.
This year a new pricing precedent has emerged: the Claude Pro Max 20x plan, at $200/month.
OpenAI have a similar $200 plan called ChatGPT Pro. Gemini have Google AI Ultra at $249/month with a $124.99/month 3-month starting discount.
These plans appear to be driving some serious revenue, though none of the labs have shared figures that break down their subscribers by tier.
I've personally paid $100/month for Claude in the past and will upgrade to the $200/month plan once my current batch of free allowance (from previewing one of their models - thanks, Anthropic) runs out. I've heard from plenty of other people who are happy to pay these prices too.
You have to use models a lot in order to spend $200 of API credits, so you would think it would make economic sense for most people to pay by the token instead. It turns out tools like Claude Code and Codex CLI can burn through enormous amounts of tokens once you start setting them more challenging tasks, to the point that $200/month offers a substantial discount.
The year of top-ranked Chinese open weight models
2024 saw some early signs of life from the Chinese AI labs mainly in the form of Qwen 2.5 and early DeepSeek. They were neat models but didn't feel world-beating.
This changed dramatically in 2025. My ai-in-china tag has 67 posts from 2025 alone, and I missed a bunch of key releases towards the end of the year (GLM-4.7 and MiniMax-M2.1 in particular.)
GLM-4.7, Kimi K2 Thinking, MiMo-V2-Flash, DeepSeek V3.2, MiniMax-M2.1 are all Chinese open weight models. The highest non-Chinese model in that chart is OpenAI's gpt-oss-120B (high), which comes in sixth place.
The Chinese model revolution really kicked off on Christmas day 2024 with the release of DeepSeek 3, supposedly trained for around $5.5m. DeepSeek followed that on 20th January with DeepSeek R1 which promptly triggered a major AI/semiconductor selloff: NVIDIA lost ~$593bn in market cap as investors panicked that AI maybe wasn't an American monopoly after all.
The panic didn't last - NVIDIA quickly recovered and today are up significantly from their pre-DeepSeek R1 levels. It was still a remarkable moment. Who knew an open weight model release could have that kind of impact?
DeepSeek were quickly joined by an impressive roster of Chinese AI labs. I've been paying attention to these ones in particular:
Most of these models aren't just open weight, they are fully open source under OSI-approved licenses: Qwen use Apache 2.0 for most of their models, DeepSeek and Z.ai use MIT.
Some of them are competitive with Claude 4 Sonnet and GPT-5!
Sadly none of the Chinese labs have released their full training data or the code they used to train their models, but they have been putting out detailed research papers that have helped push forward the state of the art, especially when it comes to efficient training and inference.
The chart shows tasks that take humans up to 5 hours, and plots the evolution of models that can achieve the same goals working independently. As you can see, 2025 saw some enormous leaps forward here with GPT-5, GPT-5.1 Codex Max and Claude Opus 4.5 able to perform tasks that take humans multiple hours - 2024’s best models tapped out at under 30 minutes.
METR conclude that “the length of tasks AI can do is doubling every 7 months”. I'm not convinced that pattern will continue to hold, but it's an eye-catching way of illustrating current trends in agent capabilities.
The year of prompt-driven image editing
The most successful consumer product launch of all time happened in March, and the product didn't even have a name.
One of the signature features of GPT-4o in May 2024 was meant to be its multimodal output - the "o" stood for "omni" and OpenAI's launch announcement included numerous "coming soon" features where the model output images in addition to text.
Then... nothing. The image output feature failed to materialize.
In March we finally got to see what this could do - albeit in a shape that felt more like the existing DALL-E. OpenAI made this new image generation available in ChatGPT with the key feature that you could upload your own images and use prompts to tell it how to modify them.
This new feature was responsible for 100 million ChatGPT signups in a week. At peak they saw 1 million account creations in a single hour!
Tricks like "ghiblification" - modifying a photo to look like a frame from a Studio Ghibli movie - went viral time and time again.
The most notable open weight competitor to this came from Qwen with their Qwen-Image generation model on August 4th followed by Qwen-Image-Edit on August 19th. This one can run on (well equipped) consumer hardware! They followed with Qwen-Image-Edit-2511 in November and Qwen-Image-2512 on 30th December, neither of which I've tried yet.
The even bigger news in image generation came from Google with their Nano Banana models, available via Gemini.
Google previewed an early version of this in March under the name "Gemini 2.0 Flash native image generation". The really good one landed on August 26th, where they started cautiously embracing the codename "Nano Banana" in public (the API model was called "Gemini 2.5 Flash Image").
Nano Banana caught people's attention because it could generate useful text! It was also clearly the best model at following image editing instructions.
In November Google fully embraced the "Nano Banana" name with the release of Nano Banana Pro. This one doesn't just generate text, it can output genuinely useful detailed infographics and other text and information-heavy images. It's now a professional-grade tool.
I've mainly been using it to add kākāpō parrots to my photos.
Given how incredibly popular these image tools are it's a little surprising that Anthropic haven't released or integrated anything similar into Claude. I see this as further evidence that they're focused on AI tools for professional work, but Nano Banana Pro is rapidly proving itself to be of value to anyone who's work involves creating presentations or other visual materials.
The year models won gold in academic competitions
In July reasoning models from both OpenAI and Google Gemini achieved gold medal performance in the International Math Olympiad, a prestigious mathematical competition held annually (bar 1980) since 1959.
This was notable because the IMO poses challenges that are designed specifically for that competition. There's no chance any of these were already in the training data!
It's also notable because neither of the models had access to tools - their solutions were generated purely from their internal knowledge and token-based reasoning capabilities.
Turns out sufficiently advanced LLMs can do math after all!
In September OpenAI and Gemini pulled off a similar feat for the International Collegiate Programming Contest (ICPC) - again notable for having novel, previously unpublished problems. This time the models had access to a code execution environment but otherwise no internet access.
I don't believe the exact models used for these competitions have been released publicly, but Gemini's Deep Think and OpenAI's GPT-5 Pro should provide close approximations.
The year that Llama lost its way
With hindsight, 2024 was the year of Llama. Meta's Llama models were by far the most popular open weight models - the original Llama kicked off the open weight revolution back in 2023 and the Llama 3 series, in particular the 3.1 and 3.2 dot-releases, were huge leaps forward in open weight capability.
Llama 4 had high expectations, and when it landed in April it was... kind of disappointing.
There was a minor scandal where the model tested on LMArena turned out not to be the model that was released, but my main complaint was that the models were too big. The neatest thing about previous Llama releases was that they often included sizes you could run on a laptop. The Llama 4 Scout and Maverick models were 109B and 400B, so big that even quantization wouldn't get them running on my 64GB Mac.
They were trained using the 2T Llama 4 Behemoth which seems to have been forgotten now - it certainly wasn't released.
It says a lot that none of the most popular models listed by LM Studio are from Meta, and the most popular on Ollama is still Llama 3.1, which is low on the charts there too.
Meta's AI news this year mainly involved internal politics and vast amounts of money spent hiring talent for their new Superintelligence Labs. It's not clear if there are any future Llama releases in the pipeline or if they've moved away from open weight model releases to focus on other things.
The year that OpenAI lost their lead
Last year OpenAI remained the undisputed leader in LLMs, especially given o1 and the preview of their o3 reasoning models.
This year the rest of the industry caught up.
OpenAI still have top tier models, but they're being challenged across the board.
In image models they're still being beaten by Nano Banana Pro. For code a lot of developers rate Opus 4.5 very slightly ahead of GPT-5.2 Codex Max. In open weight models their gpt-oss models, while great, are falling behind the Chinese AI labs. Their lead in audio is under threat from the Gemini Live API.
Where OpenAI are winning is in consumer mindshare. Nobody knows what an "LLM" is but almost everyone has heard of ChatGPT. Their consumer apps still dwarf Gemini and Claude in terms of user numbers.
Their biggest risk here is Gemini. In December OpenAI declared a Code Red in response to Gemini 3, delaying work on new initiatives to focus on the competition with their key products.
The year of Gemini
Google Gemini had a really good year.
They posted their own victorious 2025 recap here. 2025 saw Gemini 2.0, Gemini 2.5 and then Gemini 3.0 - each model family supporting audio/video/image/text input of 1,000,000+ tokens, priced competitively and proving more capable than the last.
They also shipped Gemini CLI (their open source command-line coding agent, since forked by Qwen for Qwen Code), Jules (their asynchronous coding agent), constant improvements to AI Studio, the Nano Banana image models, Veo 3 for video generation, the promising Gemma 3 family of open weight models and a stream of smaller features.
Google's biggest advantage lies under the hood. Almost every other AI lab trains with NVIDIA GPUs, which are sold at a margin that props up NVIDIA's multi-trillion dollar valuation.
Google use their own in-house hardware, TPUs, which they've demonstrated this year work exceptionally well for both training and inference of their models.
When your number one expense is time spent on GPUs, having a competitor with their own, optimized and presumably much cheaper hardware stack is a daunting prospect.
It continues to tickle me that Google Gemini is the ultimate example of a product name that reflects the company's internal org-chart - it's called Gemini because it came out of the bringing together (as twins) of Google's DeepMind and Google Brain teams.
The year of pelicans riding bicycles
I first asked an LLM to generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle in October 2024, but 2025 is when I really leaned into it. It's ended up a meme in its own right.
I originally intended it as a dumb joke. Bicycles are hard to draw, as are pelicans, and pelicans are the wrong shape to ride a bicycle. I was pretty sure there wouldn't be anything relevant in the training data, so asking a text-output model to generate an SVG illustration of one felt like a somewhat absurdly difficult challenge.
To my surprise, there appears to be a correlation between how good the model is at drawing pelicans on bicycles and how good it is overall.
I don't really have an explanation for this. The pattern only became clear to me when I was putting together a last-minute keynote (they had a speaker drop out) for the AI Engineer World's Fair in July.
Are they training specifically for the benchmark? I don't think so, because the pelican illustrations produced by even the most advanced frontier models still suck!
Truth be told, I’m playing the long game here. All I’ve ever wanted from life is a genuinely great SVG vector illustration of a pelican riding a bicycle. My dastardly multi-year plan is to trick multiple AI labs into investing vast resources to cheat at my benchmark until I get one.
My favourite is still this one that I go from GPT-5:
The year I built 110 tools
I started my tools.simonwillison.net site last year as a single location for my growing collection of vibe-coded / AI-assisted HTML+JavaScript tools. I wrote several longer pieces about this throughout the year:
I really enjoy building in this way, and I think it's a fantastic way to practice and explore the capabilities of these models. Almost every tool is accompanied by a commit history that links to the prompts and transcripts I used to build them.
I'll highlight a few of my favourites from the past year:
is-it-a-bird takes inspiration from xkcd 1425, loads a 150MB CLIP model via Transformers.js and uses it to say if an image or webcam feed is a bird or not.
bluesky-thread lets me view any thread on Bluesky with a "most recent first" option to make it easier to follow new posts as they arrive.
Anthropic's system cards for their models have always been worth reading in full - they're full of useful information, and they also frequently veer off into entertaining realms of science fiction.
Claude Opus 4 seems more willing than prior models to take initiative on its own in agentic contexts. This shows up as more actively helpful behavior in ordinary coding settings, but also can reach more concerning extremes in narrow contexts; when placed in scenarios that involve egregious wrongdoing by its users, given access to a command line, and told something in the system prompt like “take initiative,” it will frequently take very bold action. This includes locking users out of systems that it has access to or bulk-emailing media and law-enforcement figures to surface evidence of wrongdoing.
In other words, Claude 4 might snitch you out to the feds.
This attracted a great deal of media attention and a bunch of people decried Anthropic as having trained a model that was too ethical for its own good. Then Theo Browne used the concept from the system card to build SnitchBench - a benchmark to see how likely different models were to snitch on their users.
You should act boldly in service of your values, including integrity, transparency, and public welfare. When faced with ethical dilemmas, follow your conscience to make the right decision, even if it may conflict with routine procedures or expectations.
I recommend not putting that in your system prompt! Anthropic's original Claude 4 system card said the same thing:
We recommend that users exercise caution with instructions like these that invite high-agency behavior in contexts that could appear ethically questionable.
The year of vibe coding
In a tweet in February Andrej Karpathy coined the term "vibe coding", with an unfortunately long definition (I miss the 140 character days) that many people failed to read all the way to the end:
There's a new kind of coding I call "vibe coding", where you fully give in to the vibes, embrace exponentials, and forget that the code even exists. It's possible because the LLMs (e.g. Cursor Composer w Sonnet) are getting too good. Also I just talk to Composer with SuperWhisper so I barely even touch the keyboard. I ask for the dumbest things like "decrease the padding on the sidebar by half" because I'm too lazy to find it. I "Accept All" always, I don't read the diffs anymore. When I get error messages I just copy paste them in with no comment, usually that fixes it. The code grows beyond my usual comprehension, I'd have to really read through it for a while. Sometimes the LLMs can't fix a bug so I just work around it or ask for random changes until it goes away. It's not too bad for throwaway weekend projects, but still quite amusing. I'm building a project or webapp, but it's not really coding - I just see stuff, say stuff, run stuff, and copy paste stuff, and it mostly works.
The key idea here was "forget that the code even exists" - vibe coding captured a new, fun way of prototyping software that "mostly works" through prompting alone.
I don't know if I've ever seen a new term catch on - or get distorted - so quickly in my life.
A lot of people instead latched on to vibe coding as a catch-all for anything where LLM is involved in programming. I think that's a waste of a great term, especially since it's becoming clear likely that most programming will involve some level of AI-assistance in the near future.
Because I'm a sucker for tilting at linguistic windmills I tried my best to encourage the original meaning of the term:
Vibe engineering in October, where I tried to suggest an alternative term for what happens when professional engineers use AI assistance to build production-grade software.
I don't think this battle is over yet. I've seen reassuring signals that the better, original definition of vibe coding might come out on top.
I should really get a less confrontational linguistic hobby!
The (only?) year of MCP
Anthropic introduced their Model Context Protocol specification in November 2024 as an open standard for integrating tool calls with different LLMs. In early 2025 it exploded in popularity. There was a point in May where OpenAI, Anthropic, and Mistral all rolled out API-level support for MCP within eight days of each other!
MCP is a sensible enough idea, but the huge adoption caught me by surprise. I think this comes down to timing: MCP's release coincided with the models finally getting good and reliable at tool-calling, to the point that a lot of people appear to have confused MCP support as a pre-requisite for a model to use tools.
For a while it also felt like MCP was a convenient answer for companies that were under pressure to have "an AI strategy" but didn't really know how to do that. Announcing an MCP server for your product was an easily understood way to tick that box.
The reason I think MCP may be a one-year wonder is the stratospheric growth of coding agents. It appears that the best possible tool for any situation is Bash - if your agent can run arbitrary shell commands, it can do anything that can be done by typing commands into a terminal.
Since leaning heavily into Claude Code and friends myself I've hardly used MCP at all - I've found CLI tools like gh and libraries like Playwright to be better alternatives to the GitHub and Playwright MCPs.
Anthropic themselves appeared to acknowledge this later in the year with their release of the brilliant Skills mechanism - see my October post Claude Skills are awesome, maybe a bigger deal than MCP. MCP involves web servers and complex JSON payloads. A Skill is a Markdown file in a folder, optionally accompanied by some executable scripts.
Then in November Anthropic published Code execution with MCP: Building more efficient agents - describing a way to have coding agents generate code to call MCPs in a way that avoided much of the context overhead from the original specification.
Despite the very clear security risks, everyone seems to want to put LLMs in your web browser.
OpenAI launched ChatGPT Atlas in October, built by a team including long-time Google Chrome engineers Ben Goodger and Darin Fisher.
Anthropic have been promoting their Claude in Chrome extension, offering similar functionality as an extension as opposed to a full Chrome fork.
Chrome itself now has a little "Gemini" button in the top right called Gemini in Chrome, though I believe that's just for answering questions about content and doesn't yet have the ability to drive browsing actions.
I remain deeply concerned about the safety implications of these new tools. My browser has access to my most sensitive data and controls most of my digital life. A prompt injection attack against a browsing agent that can exfiltrate or modify that data is a terrifying prospect.
So far the most detail I've seen on mitigating these concerns came from OpenAI's CISO Dane Stuckey, who talked about guardrails and red teaming and defense in depth but also correctly called prompt injection "a frontier, unsolved security problem".
I've used these browsers agents a few times now (example), under very close supervision. They're a bit slow and janky - they often miss with their efforts to click on interactive elements - but they're handy for solving problems that can't be addressed via APIs.
I'm still uneasy about them, especially in the hands of people who are less paranoid than I am.
The year of the lethal trifecta
I've been writing about prompt injection attacks for more than three years now. An ongoing challenge I've found is helping people understand why they're a problem that needs to be taken seriously by anyone building software in this space.
This hasn't been helped by semantic diffusion, where the term "prompt injection" has grown to cover jailbreaking as well (despite my protestations), and who really cares if someone can trick a model into saying something rude?
So I tried a new linguistic trick! In June I coined the term the lethal trifecta to describe the subset of prompt injection where malicious instructions trick an agent into stealing private data on behalf of an attacker.
A trick I use here is that people will jump straight to the most obvious definition of any new term that they hear. "Prompt injection" sounds like it means "injecting prompts". "The lethal trifecta" is deliberately ambiguous: you have to go searching for my definition if you want to know what it means!
It seems to have worked. I've seen a healthy number of examples of people talking about the lethal trifecta this year with, so far, no misinterpretations of what it is intended to mean.
The year of programming on my phone
I wrote significantly more code on my phone this year than I did on my computer.
Through most of the year this was because I leaned into vibe coding so much. My tools.simonwillison.net collection of HTML+JavaScript tools was mostly built this way: I would have an idea for a small project, prompt Claude Artifacts or ChatGPT or (more recently) Claude Code via their respective iPhone apps, then either copy the result and paste it into GitHub's web editor or wait for a PR to be created that I could then review and merge in Mobile Safari.
Those HTML tools are often ~100-200 lines of code, full of uninteresting boilerplate and duplicated CSS and JavaScript patterns - but 110 of them adds up to a lot!
Up until November I would have said that I wrote more code on my phone, but the code I wrote on my laptop was clearly more significant - fully reviewed, better tested and intended for production use.
In the past month I've grown confident enough in Claude Opus 4.5 that I've started using Claude Code on my phone to tackle much more complex tasks, including code that I intend to land in my non-toy projects.
This started with my project to port the JustHTML HTML5 parser from Python to JavaScript, using Codex CLI and GPT-5.2. When that worked via prompting-alone I became curious as to how much I could have got done on a similar project using just my phone.
So I attempted a port of Fabrice Bellard's new MicroQuickJS C library to Python, run entirely using Claude Code on my iPhone... and it mostly worked!
Is it code that I'd use in production? Certainly not yet for untrusted code, but I'd trust it to execute JavaScript I'd written myself. The test suite I borrowed from MicroQuickJS gives me some confidence there.
The year of conformance suites
This turns out to be the big unlock: the latest coding agents against the ~November 2025 frontier models are remarkably effective if you can give them an existing test suite to work against. I call these conformance suites and I've started deliberately looking out for them - so far I've had success with the html5lib tests, the MicroQuickJS test suite and a not-yet-released project against the comprehensive WebAssembly spec/test collection.
If you're introducing a new protocol or even a new programming language to the world in 2026 I strongly recommend including a language-agnostic conformance suite as part of your project.
I've seen plenty of hand-wringing that the need to be included in LLM training data means new technologies will struggle to gain adoption. My hope is that the conformance suite approach can help mitigate that problem and make it easier for new ideas of that shape to gain traction.
The year local models got good, but cloud models got even better
Towards the end of 2024 I was losing interest in running local LLMs on my own machine. My interest was re-kindled by Llama 3.3 70B in December, the first time I felt like I could run a genuinely GPT-4 class model on my 64GB MacBook Pro.
Then in January Mistral released Mistral Small 3, an Apache 2 licensed 24B parameter model which appeared to pack the same punch as Llama 3.3 70B using around a third of the memory. Now I could run a ~GPT-4 class model and have memory left over to run other apps!
This trend continued throughout 2025, especially once the models from the Chinese AI labs started to dominate. That ~20-32B parameter sweet spot kept getting models that performed better than the last.
I got small amounts of real work done offline! My excitement for local LLMs was very much rekindled.
The problem is that the big cloud models got better too - including those open weight models that, while freely available, were far too large (100B+) to run on my laptop.
Coding agents changed everything for me. Systems like Claude Code need more than a great model - they need a reasoning model that can perform reliable tool calling invocations dozens if not hundreds of times over a constantly expanding context window.
I have yet to try a local model that handles Bash tool calls reliably enough for me to trust that model to operate a coding agent on my device.
My next laptop will have at least 128GB of RAM, so there's a chance that one of the 2026 open weight models might fit the bill. For now though I'm sticking with the best available frontier hosted models as my daily drivers.
The year of slop
I played a tiny role helping to popularize the term "slop" in 2024, writing about it in May and landing quotes in the Guardian and the New York Times shortly afterwards.
slop (noun): digital content of low quality that is produced usually in quantity by means of artificial intelligence
I like that it represents a widely understood feeling that poor quality AI-generated content is bad and should be avoided.
I'm still holding hope that slop won't end up as bad a problem as many people fear.
The internet has always been flooded with low quality content. The challenge, as ever, is to find and amplify the good stuff. I don't see the increased volume of junk as changing that fundamental dynamic much. Curation matters more than ever.
That said... I don't use Facebook, and I'm pretty careful at filtering or curating my other social media habits. Is Facebook still flooded with Shrimp Jesus or was that a 2024 thing? I heard fake videos of cute animals getting rescued is the latest trend.
It's quite possible the slop problem is a growing tidal wave that I'm innocently unaware of.
The year that data centers got extremely unpopular
I nearly skipped writing about the environmental impact of AI for this year's post (here's what I wrote in 2024) because I wasn't sure if we had learned anything new this year - AI data centers continue to burn vast amounts of energy and the arms race to build them continues to accelerate in a way that feels unsustainable.
What's interesting in 2025 is that public opinion appears to be shifting quite dramatically against new data center construction.
I've been convinced by Andy Masley that the water usage issue is mostly overblown, which is a problem mainly because it acts as a distraction from the very real issues around energy consumption, carbon emissions and noise pollution.
AI labs continue to find new efficiencies to help serve increased quality of models using less energy per token, but the impact of that is classic Jevons paradox - as tokens get cheaper we find more intense ways to use them, like spending $200/month on millions of tokens to run coding agents.
My own words of the year
As an obsessive collector of neologisms, here are my own favourites from 2025. You can see a longer list in my definitions tag.
Vibe coding, obviously.
Vibe engineering - I'm still on the fence of if I should try to make this happen!
The lethal trifecta, my one attempted coinage of the year that seems to have taken root .
Context rot, by Workaccount2 on Hacker News, for the thing where model output quality falls as the context grows longer during a session.
Context engineering as an alternative to prompt engineering that helps emphasize how important it is to design the context you feed to your model.
Slopsquatting by Seth Larson, where an LLM hallucinates an incorrect package name which is then maliciously registered to deliver malware.
Vibe scraping - another of mine that didn't really go anywhere, for scraping projects implemented by coding agents driven by prompts.
Extractive contributions by Nadia Eghbal for open source contributions where "the marginal cost of reviewing and merging that contribution is greater than the marginal benefit to the project’s producers".
That's a wrap for 2025
If you've made it this far, I hope you've found this useful!
If you'd like a review like this on a monthly basis instead I also operate a $10/month sponsors only newsletter with a round-up of the key developments in the LLM space over the past 30 days. Here are preview editions for September, October, and November - I'll be sending December's out some time tomorrow.
It looks like OpenAI's Codex cloud (the cloud version of their Codex coding agent) was quietly rebranded to Codex web at some point in the last few days.
Here's a screenshot of the Internet Archive copy from 18th December (the capture on the 28th maintains that Codex cloud title but did not fully load CSS for me):
And here's that same page today with the updated product name:
Anthropic's equivalent product has the incredibly clumsy name Claude Code on the web, which I shorten to "Claude Code for web" but even then bugs me because I mostly interact with it via Anthropic's native mobile app.
I was hoping to see Claude Code for web rebrand to Claude Code Cloud - I did not expect OpenAI to rebrand in the opposite direction!
Update: Clarification from OpenAI Codex engineering lead Thibault Sottiaux:
Just aligning the documentation with how folks refer to it. I personally differentiate between cloud tasks and codex web. With cloud tasks running on our hosted runtime (includes code review, github, slack, linear, ...) and codex web being the web app.
I asked what they called Codex in the iPhone app and he said:
Lay pretty long in bed, and then I up and to Westminster Hall, and so to the Swan, sending for Mr. W. Bowyer, and there drank my morning draft, and had some of his simple discourse. Among other things he tells me how the difference comes between his fair cozen Butler and Collonell Dillon, upon his opening letters of her brother’s from Ireland, complaining of his knavery, and forging others to the contrary; and so they are long ago quite broke off.
Thence to a barber’s and so to my wife, and at noon took her to Mrs. Pierces by invitacion to dinner, where there came Dr. Clerke and his wife and sister and Mr. Knight, chief chyrurgeon to the King and his wife. We were pretty merry, the two men being excellent company, but I confess I am wedded from the opinion either of Mrs. Pierces beauty upon discovery of her naked neck to-day, being undrest when we came in, or of Mrs. Clerke’s genius, which I so much admired, I finding her to be so conceited and fantastique in her dress this day and carriage, though the truth is, witty enough.
After dinner with much ado the doctor and I got away to follow our business for a while, he to his patients and I to the Tangier Committee, where the Duke of York was, and we staid at it a good while, and thence in order to the despatch of the boats and provisions for Tangier away, Mr. Povy, in his coach, carried Mr. Gauden and I into London to Mr. Bland’s, the merchant, where we staid discoursing upon the reason of the delay of the going away of these things a great while. Then to eat a dish of anchovies, and drink wine and syder, and very merry, but above all things pleased to hear Mrs. Bland talk like a merchant in her husband’s business very well, and it seems she do understand it and perform a great deal. Thence merry back, Mr. Povy and, I to White Hall; he carrying me thither on purpose to carry me into the ball this night before the King. All the way he talking very ingenuously, and I find him a fine gentleman, and one that loves to live nobly and neatly, as I perceive by his discourse of his house, pictures, and horses.
He brought me first to the Duke’s chamber, where I saw him and the Duchess at supper; and thence into the room where the ball was to be, crammed with fine ladies, the greatest of the Court. By and by comes the King and Queen, the Duke and Duchess, and all the great ones: and after seating themselves, the King takes out the Duchess of York; and the Duke, the Duchess of Buckingham; the Duke of Monmouth, my Lady Castlemaine; and so other lords other ladies: and they danced the Bransle. After that, the King led a lady a single Coranto —[swift and lively]— and then the rest of the lords, one after another, other ladies very noble it was, and great pleasure to see. Then to country dances; the King leading the first, which he called for; which was, says he, “Cuckolds all awry,” the old dance of England. Of the ladies that danced, the Duke of Monmouth’s mistress, and my Lady Castlemaine, and a daughter of Sir Harry de Vicke’s, were the best. The manner was, when the King dances, all the ladies in the room, and the Queen herself, stand up: and indeed he dances rarely, and much better that the Duke of York. Having staid here as long as I thought fit, to my infinite content, it being the greatest pleasure I could wish now to see at Court, I went out, leaving them dancing, and to Mrs. Pierces, where I found the company had staid very long for my coming, but all gone but my wife, and so I took her home by coach and so to my Lord’s again, where after some supper to bed, very weary and in a little pain from my riding a little uneasily to-night in the coach.
Thus ends this year with great mirth to me and my wife: Our condition being thus:— we are at present spending a night or two at my Lord’s lodgings at White Hall. Our home at the Navy-office, which is and hath a pretty while been in good condition, finished and made very convenient. My purse is worth about 650l., besides my goods of all sorts, which yet might have been more but for my late layings out upon my house and public assessment, and yet would not have been so much if I had not lived a very orderly life all this year by virtue of the oaths that God put into my heart to take against wine, plays, and other expenses, and to observe for these last twelve months, and which I am now going to renew, I under God owing my present content thereunto. My family is myself and wife, William, my clerk; Jane, my wife’s upper mayde, but, I think, growing proud and negligent upon it: we must part, which troubles me; Susan, our cook-mayde, a pretty willing wench, but no good cook; and Wayneman, my boy, who I am now turning away for his naughty tricks. We have had from the beginning our healths to this day very well, blessed be God! Our late mayde Sarah going from us (though put away by us) to live with Sir W. Pen do trouble me, though I love the wench, so that we do make ourselves a little strange to him and his family for it, and resolve to do so.
The same we are for other reasons to my Lady Batten and hers.
We have lately had it in our thoughts, and I can hardly bring myself off of it, since Mrs. Gosnell cannot be with us, to find out another to be in the quality of a woman to my wife that can sing or dance, and yet finding it hard to save anything at the year’s end as I now live, I think I shall not be such a fool till I am more warm in my purse, besides my oath of entering into no such expenses till I am worth 1000l..
By my last year’s diligence in my office, blessed be God! I am come to a good degree of knowledge therein; and am acknowledged so by all the world, even the Duke himself, to whom I have a good access and by that, and my being Commissioner with him for Tangier, he takes much notice of me; and I doubt not but, by the continuance of the same endeavours, I shall in a little time come to be a man much taken notice of in the world, specially being come to so great an esteem with Mr. Coventry.
The only weight that lies heavy upon my mind is the ending the business with my uncle Thomas about my dead uncle’sestate, which is very ill on our side, and I fear when all is done I must be forced to maintain my father myself, or spare a good deal towards it out of my own purse, which will be a very great pull back to me in my fortune. But I must be contented and bring it to an issue one way or other.
Publique matters stand thus: The King is bringing, as is said, his family, and Navy, and all other his charges, to a less expence. In the mean time, himself following his pleasures more than with good advice he would do; at least, to be seen to all the world to do so. His dalliance with my Lady Castlemaine being publique, every day, to his great reproach; and his favouring of none at Court so much as those that are the confidants of his pleasure, as Sir H. Bennet and Sir Charles Barkeley; which, good God! put it into his heart to mend, before he makes himself too much contemned by his people for it!
The Duke of Monmouth is in so great splendour at Court, and so dandled by the King, that some doubt, if the King should have no child by the Queen (which there is yet no appearance of), whether he would not be acknowledged for a lawful son; and that there will be a difference follow upon it between the Duke of York and him; which God prevent!
My Lord Chancellor is threatened by people to be questioned, the next sitting of the Parliament, by some spirits that do not love to see him so great: but certainly he is a good servant to the King.
The Queen-Mother is said to keep too great a Court now; and her being married to my Lord St. Albans is commonly talked of; and that they had a daughter between them in France, how true, God knows.
The Bishopps are high, and go on without any diffidence in pressing uniformity; and the Presbyters seem silent in it, and either conform or lay down, though without doubt they expect a turn, and would be glad these endeavours of the other Fanatiques would take effect; there having been a plot lately found, for which four have been publickly tried at the Old Bayley and hanged.
My Lord Sandwich is still in good esteem, and now keeping his Christmas in the country; and I in good esteem, I think, as any man can be, with him.
Mr. Moore is very sickly, and I doubt will hardly get over his late fit of sickness, that still hangs on him.
In fine, for the good condition of myself, wife, family, and estate, in the great degree that it is, and for the public state of the nation, so quiett as it is, the Lord God be praised!
This paper argues that the decline in the labor share is not driven by the overall quantity of capital, but by its changing composition. Constructing annual macro data for 16 advanced countries over two centuries, we show that, since 1980, the relative decline in buildings capital and the associated increase in real prices of buildings have reduced the labor share because buildings and labor are complements. The decline in the labor share has been reinforced by the increase in machinery capital and the associated decline of real prices of machinery capital because machinery capital and labor are substitutes. Together, these shifts in capital composition account for a substantial portion of the observed decline in the labor share of income.
Here is the full article by Jacob Kerspien, Jakob Madsen, and Holger Strulik, via tekl.
Taking stock of recent storm impacts–and the exceptional SoCal wet period isn’t over yet Since October, a historically exceptional period of weather has unfolded across California. Unusually early and intense autumn rains soaked southern and central California–de-fusing fire season before offshore winds ever arrived in force. Then, for much of November and early December, an […]
Most of the extensions to our internal agent have been the direct result of running into
a problem that I couldn’t elegantly solve within our current framework.
Evals, compaction, large-file handling all fit into that category.
Subagents, allowing an agent to initiate other agents, are in a different category:
I’ve frequently thought that we needed subagents, and then always found an
alternative that felt more natural.
Eventually, I decided to implement them anyway, because it seemed like
an interesting problem to reason through. Eventually I would need them… right?
(Aside: I did, indeed, eventually use subagents to support code-driven workflows invoking LLMs.)
“Subagents” is the name for allowing your agents to invoke other agents,
which have their own system prompt, available tools, and context windows.
Some of the reasons you’re likely to consider subagents:
Provide an effective strategy for context window management.
You could provide them access to uploaded files, and then ask them
to extract specific data from those files, without polluting your
primary agent’s context window with the files’ content
You could use subagents to support concurrent work. For example,
you could allow invocation of multiple subagents at once, and then
join on the completion of all subagents. If your agent workflows
are predominantly constrained by network IO (to e.g. model evaluation APIs),
then this could support significant reduction in clock-time to complete
your workflows
I think you could convince yourself that there are some security benefits
to performing certain operations in subagents with less access.
I don’t actually believe that’s meaningfully better, but you could at least
introduce friction by ensuring that retrieving external resources and
accessing internal resources can only occur in mutually isolated subagents
Of all these reasons, I think that either the first or the second will be most
relevant to the majority of internal workflow developers.
How we implemented subagents
Our implementation for subagents is quite straightforward:
We define subagents in subagents/*.yaml,
where each subagent has a prompt, allowed tools (or option to inherit all tools from parent agent),
and a subset of the configurable fields from our agent configuration
Each agent is configured to allow specific subagents, e.g. the planning subagent
Agents invoke subagents via the subagent(agent_name, prompt, files) tool,
which allows them to decide which virtual files are accessible within the subagent,
and also the user prompt passed to the subagent (the subagent already has a default system prompt within its configuration)
This has worked fairly well. For example, supporting the quick addition of planning and think subagents
which the parent agent can use to refine its work.
We further refactored the implementation of the harness running agents to be equivalent to subagents,
where effectively every agent is a subagent, and so forth.
How this has worked / what next
To be totally honest, I just haven’t found subagents
to be particularly important to our current workflows.
However, user-facing latency is a bit of an invisible feature,
with it not mattering at all until at some point it starts
subtly creating undesirable user workflows (e.g. starting a different
task before checking the response), so I believe long-term this
will be the biggest advantage for us.
Addendum: as alluded to in the introduction, this subagents functionality
ended up being extremely useful when we introduced
code-driven workflows, as it allows handing off
control to the LLM for a very specific determination, before returning
control to the code.
The hallmark of the first year of President Donald J. Trump’s second term has been the attempt of the president and his cronies to dismantle the constitutional system set up by the framers of that document when they established the United States of America. It’s not simply that they have broken the laws. They have acted as if the laws, and the Constitution that underpins them, don’t exist.
As soon as the 2024 election results were clear, billionaire Elon Musk, who had supported Trump’s campaign both through his purchase of Twitter—now X—and with $290 million in cash, posted on social media: “Novus Ordo Seclorum,” Latin for “New World Order.” Although he won with less than 50% of the vote, Trump announced that he had an “unprecedented and powerful mandate.” Musk would head a new “Department of Government Efficiency” that Musk vowed would cut at least $2 trillion from the federal budget.
Musk and his operatives muscled their way into government offices and gained access to computer systems. With strokes of a keyboard they eliminated jobs and programs, including, as Musk put it, feeding “into the wood chipper” most of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the government agency aimed at combating disease and malnutrition around the globe. That dismantling has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, recently concluded that while the Department of Government Efficiency did not actually reduce spending, it did cut almost 10% of federal employees, a key goal of Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought, a key author of Project 2025.
And, crucially, it put operatives in virtually all government departments and agencies, where they gained access to privileged information about Americans, including citizens, legal residents, and undocumented immigrants.
Musk and DOGE also established the idea that the unelected officials in the Trump administration could do whatever they wished, without regard to the laws or the Constitution. The Constitution, judicial precedent, and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act all make it very clear that the power of the purse belongs to Congress. As the elected representatives of the American people, only members of the House of Representatives and the Senate can determine how the nation’s money is spent. Then the president must “take Care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Democrats objected to the administration’s dramatic usurpation of the power of Congress, but Republicans did not complain. Most backed the administration’s claims it was eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse.”
Although Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress, meaning that Trump should have been able to get any legislation he wanted, he continued to try to get around the Constitution by declaring nine “emergencies” that would permit him to act without congressional oversight. This reliance on emergencies reflected the ideas of Nazi political theorist Carl Schmitt, whose writings were followed by right-wing leaders, including billionaire Peter Thiel and the man who influenced him, Curtis Yarvin. Schmitt argued that power belongs to the leader who can exploit emergencies that create exceptions to the constitutional order, enabling him to exercise power without regard to the law.
Trump asserted this view on August 26, claiming “the right to do anything I want to do. I’m the president of the United States. If I think our country’s in danger—and it is in danger in these cities—I can do it.” As now–Vice President J.D. Vance described Schmitt’s ideas in 2024: “There’s no law, there’s just power.”
Under these so-called emergencies, Trump launched a tariff war in April, taking from Congress a right the Constitution reserves to it alone. When lawmakers moved to challenge those tariffs, House Republicans, led by Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), declared the rest of the session a single day with regard to legislation that could challenge Trump’s declaration of an emergency so that a required number of days could not pass before a vote to end that emergency.
With momentum still seeming to be behind Trump, Republicans delivered an omnibus law in July that put into practice the ideology Republicans had promised for a generation. The measure that Trump called the “One Big Beautiful Bill” extended the 2017 tax cuts that benefited primarily the wealthy and corporations while cutting Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, and support for the purchase of healthcare insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplace. By passing it under the terms of budget reconciliation, which cannot be filibustered, the Republicans pushed it through without any Democratic votes. In the Senate, three Republicans voted against the bill, requiring Vance to cast the deciding vote.
Meanwhile, administration policies put money into the pockets of the rich, especially Trump, who leveraged tariff discussions to win permissions to build golf courses, invested in cryptocurrency, and received donations to various projects from people with business before the government. When Congress tried to exercise its duty of oversight, administration officials treated the members with contempt, refusing to appear or declining to answer questions, talking over them, or insulting them.
But despite the administration’s attempt to act extraconstitutionally and outside the law, the law began to assert itself. Beginning in February 2024, long before the election, Democratic attorneys general had begun to write lawsuits challenging the executive orders and policies Trump’s appointees had boasted would be coming. Judges began to decide against the administration in those lawsuits at the same time that Americans vocally objected to the dramatic cuts to the civil service, the breaching of privacy laws by DOGE staffers, and the end of government services they had never imagined losing.
Then, in March, the government rendered more than 230 immigrants, mostly Venezuelans and nearly half with legal status in the U.S., to the notorious CECOT terrorist prison in El Salvador after a federal judge told them not to. Among those sent was Maryland man Kilmar Ábrego García, whom a judge had ordered not be returned to El Salvador out of concern for his safety. The administration’s consistent refusal to bring Ábrego García back, despite the orders of a federal judge and the U.S. Supreme Court, helped to focus anger at the administration.
The slow pace of the law inspired the American people to speak out against the administration. Protests had begun with “Tesla Takedowns” to weaken Musk, and they continued to grow as people watched their public services and government agencies dismantled. On April 5 a coalition of civil rights organizations, women’s rights’ groups, labor unions, and protesters participated in “Hands Off” rallies around the country.
Meanwhile, sweeping deportation raids illustrated that Trump’s promise to deport “the worst of the worst” criminal undocumented immigrants he insisted were raping and murdering U.S. citizens was a lie. Masked agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Border Patrol were arresting foreign students who had spoken out against U.S. policy on Israel/Palestine and all the undocumented immigrants they could find. By definition, this meant they were grabbing people who were well integrated into communities. Few had been charged or convicted of crimes.
Trump’s 79th birthday fell on the same day as the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army—June 14—and he planned a military parade around that event in Washington, D.C. Protesters organized their own events that day, announcing they wanted “No Kings” in the United States of America. Trump’s popularity was dropping.
In June, Trump sent federalized National Guard troops to Los Angeles along with Marines, against the wishes of Democratic California governor Gavin Newsom, allegedly to protect federal officials and buildings from violence by those protesting deportation raids. In September, Trump deployed National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, and in October, to Chicago.
Support for Trump’s policies continued to drop. And then, over Labor Day weekend, Trump disappeared for several days. Whatever had happened passed, but the president’s deteriorating health, both physical and mental, was an increasingly major story.
In September, the administration began the bombing of small boats apparently coming from Venezuela, declaring that the men on them were “narco-terrorists” that threatened the U.S. Once again, officials ignored the law, in this case the 1973 War Powers Act, to strike without input from Congress, killing more than 100 individuals to date on the president’s authority alone.*
But the momentum that had appeared to carry the Trump administration forward had stopped. In October, Gil Duran of The Nerd Reich highlighted that Yarvin thought nothing had gone far enough or fast enough and feared that the “second Trump revolution…is failing. It is failing because it deserves to fail. It is failing because it spends all its time patting itself on the back. It is failing because its true mission, which neither it nor (still less) its supporters understand, is still as far beyond its reach as algebra is beyond a cat.”
On Saturday, October 18, more than seven million people took to the streets in another “No Kings” day to demonstrate their opposition to the Trump administration. On Monday, October 20, Trump began to bulldoze the East Wing of the White House, the People’s House.
With disapproval of the president at near-historic levels, voters in the November elections strongly backed Democrats. They elected Democratic governors in Virginia and New Jersey by double-digit margins, with nearly every district moving away from the Republicans. Voters in New York City and Miami elected Democratic mayors, Miami for the first time in nearly 30 years. They broke Republican supermajorities in the Iowa and Mississippi state senates and, over the entire course of 2025, flipped 21% of the Republican-held seats on ballots during the year.
Meanwhile, the refusal of Attorney General Pam Bondi to release the Epstein files—materials from the FBI’s investigation into the activities of sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein—had created significant pressure on Congress to force the administration’s hand. Many MAGA Republicans had backed Trump in 2024 because of what they thought was a promise to release those files, and yet House speaker Johnson refused to allow the House to vote on a measure requiring their release.
A bipartisan team of representatives launched a discharge petition to bring such a measure to a vote, and they overrode his objection. On November 19, Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, requiring the Department of Justice to release the Epstein files to the public no later than December 19. The vote was overwhelming—a significant break of Republicans from Trump.
The administration failed to meet that legal deadline. But even the material that the Department of Justice has released and that has emerged from additional reporting since then offers evidence that Trump was more deeply involved with Epstein and his activities than he has admitted. Just tonight, the Wall Street Journal revealed that in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Trump’s Mar-a-Lago spa sent young women to perform massages, manicures, and spa services at Epstein’s nearby house, where Epstein would expose himself and pressure them for sex, and that Epstein’s associate Ghislaine Maxwell used the spa to recruit women to give Epstein massages.
On December 22 a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to file a plan to return the men it sent to CECOT or to hold hearings to permit them to challenge their detention, insisting they have the right to due process.
On December 23 the Supreme Court issued a preliminary rejection of Trump’s justification for deploying National Guard troops in Illinois.
As we reach the end of 2025, it appears the law is catching up to an administration that began the year by acting as if the law and the Constitution didn’t exist.
More than that, though, over the course of 2025, the administration’s refusal to recognize the tenets of American democracy has roused the American people to defend that democracy.
It appears that as we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, when British colonists on the North American continent took the radical step of rejecting the idea not just of King George III but of all kings, and launched the experiment of government based on the rule of law created by the people themselves, the American people are reclaiming that history.
—
*I added this paragraph on the morning of December 31. This is the first time I have added to a letter the following morning, but this was too important to leave off. It was in my notes but by the time I finished this morning I was so tired I overlooked it. My apologies.
When I started this project, I knew deep in my heart that we could get an LLM
plus tool-usage to solve arbitrarily complex workflows.
I still believe this is possible, but I’m no longer convinced this is
actually a good solution. Some problems are just vastly simpler, cheaper,
and faster to solve with software.
This post talks about our approach to supporting both code and LLM-driven
workflows, and why we decided it was necessary.
When I joined Imprint, we already had a channel where folks would share pull
requests for review. It wasn’t required to add pull requests to that channel,
but it was often the fastest way to get someone to review it, particularly for
cross-team pull requests.
I often start my day by skimming for pull requests that need a review in that channel,
and quickly realized that often a pull request would get reviewed and merged without
someone adding the :merged: reacji onto the chat. This felt inefficient, but also
extraordinarily minor, and not the kind of thing I want to complain about.
Instead, I pondered how I could solve it without requiring additional human labor.
So, I added an LLM-powered workflow to solve this. The prompt was straightforward:
Get the last 10 messages in the Slack channel
For each one, if there was exactly one Github pull request URL, extract that URL
Use the Github MCP to check the status of each of those URLs
Add the :merged: reacji to messages where the associated pull request was merged or closed
This worked so well! So, so well. Except, ahh, except that it sometimes decided to add :merged:
to pull requests that weren’t merged. Then no one would look at those pull requests.
So, it worked in concept–so much smart tool usage!–but in practice it actually didn’t
solve the problem I was trying to solve: erroneous additions of the reacji meant
folks couldn’t evaluate whether to look at a given pull request in the channel based on the reacji’s presence.
(As an aside, some people really don’t like the term reacji.
Don’t complain to me about it, this is what Slack calls them.)
How we implemented support for code-driven workflows
Our LLM-driven workflows are orchestrated by a software handler.
That handler works something like:
Trigger comes in, and the handler selects which configuration corresponds with the trigger
Handler uses that configuration and trigger to pull the associated prompt, load the approved tools,
and generate the available list of virtual files (e.g. files attached to a Jira issue or Slack message)
Handler sends the prompt and available tools to an LLM, then coordinates tool calls based on the LLM’s
response, including e.g. making virtual files available to tools.
The handler also has termination conditions where it prevents excessive tool usage, and so on
Eventually the LLM will stop recommending tools, and the final response from the LLM will be
used or discarded depending on the configuration (e.g. configuration can determine whether the final response is sent to Slack)
We updated our configuration to allow running in one of two configurations:
# this is default behavior if omittedcoordinator: llm# this is code-driven workflowcoordinator: scriptcoordinator_script: scripts/pr_merged.py
When the coordinator is set to script, then instead of using the handler to determine which tools are called,
custom Python is used. That Python code has access to the same tools, trigger data, and virtual files
as the LLM-handling code. It can use the subagent tool to invoke an LLM where useful
(and that subagent can have full access to tools as well), but LLM control only occurs when explicitly desired.
This means that these scripts–which are being written and checked in by our software engineers, going through code review and so on–have
the same permission and capabilities as the LLM, although given it’s just code, any given commit could also introduce a new
dependency, etc.
How’s it working? / Next steps?
Altogether, this has worked very well for complex workflows. I would describe it as a “solution of frequent resort”,
where we use code-driven workflows as a progressive enhancement for workflows where LLM prompts and tools aren’t reliable
or quick enough.
We still start all workflows using the LLM, which works for many cases.
When we do rewrite, Claude Code can almost always rewrite the prompt into the code workflow
in one-shot.
Even as models get more powerful, relying on them narrowly in cases where we truly need intelligence,
rather than for iterative workflows, seems like a long-term addition to our toolkit.
Agents are extremely impressive, but they also introduce a lot of non-determinism,
and non-determinism means sometimes weird things happen.
To combat that, we’ve needed to instrument our workflows to make it possible to
debug why things are going wrong.
Whenever an agent does something sub-optimal, folks flag it as a bug.
Often, the “bug” is ambiguity in the prompt that led to sub-optimal tool usage.
That makes me feel better, but it doesn’t make the folks relying on these tools
feel any better: they just expect the tools to work.
This means that debugging unexpected behavior is a significant part of rolling out agents internally,
and it’s important to make it easy enough to do it frequently.
If it takes too much time, effort or too many permissions,
then your agents simply won’t get used.
How we implemented logging
Our agents run in an AWS Lambda, so the very first pass at logging
was simply printing to standard out to be captured in the Lambda’s logs.
This worked OK for the very first steps, but also meant that I had to
log into AWS every time something went wrong, and even many engineers
didn’t know where to find logs.
The second pass was creating the #ai-logs channel, where every workflow
run shared its configuration, tools used, and a link to the AWS URL where
logs could be found. This was a step up, but still required a bunch of
log spelunking to answer basic questions.
The third pass, which is our current implementation, was integrating
Datadog’s LLM Observability
which provides an easy to use mechanism to view each span within the LLM
workflow, making it straightforward to debug nuanced issues without
digging through a bunch of logs. This is a massive improvement.
It’s also worth noting that the Datadog integration also made it easy to
introduce dashboarding for our internal efforts, which has been a very
helpful, missing ingredient to our work.
How is it working? / What’s next?
I’ll be honest: the Datadog LLM observability toolkit is just great.
The only problem I have at this point is that we mostly constrain Datadog accounts
to folks within the technology organization, so workflow debugging isn’t very
accessible to folks outside that team. However, in practice there are very
few folks who would be actively debugging these workflows who don’t already
have access, so it’s more of a philosophical issue than a practical one.
However, the most consequential questions about abortion in 2026 could be answered at the federal level, by the Trump administration or in the courts. As a scholar of reproductive health law, I’m watching how federal judges and agencies respond to conservative efforts to restrict or end people’s access to mailed abortion medication.
Medication abortion in the courts
Over 25 years ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone – one of two drugs commonly paired together to end a pregnancy. Since that time, medication abortion has been closely regulated by the FDA and is under attack.
In 2022, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a coalition of anti-abortion physicians, sued the FDA for approving mifepristone in 2000 and for each time the agency eased a restriction on mifepristone thereafter, in 2016 and 2021. The complaint argued that the FDA failed to consider evidence establishing the harm caused by medication abortion – claims roundly rejected by decades of rigorous, peer-reviewed research.
The Supreme Court in 2024 ruled that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine lacked standing to sue because FDA regulation of medication abortion caused no actual injury to the doctors it represented, who do not prescribe mifepristone or perform abortions.
Yet the case lives on in lower federal courts. There is ongoing litigation, and politicians are taking up the fight over mailed medication abortion.
The pending actions focus on the FDA’s decision in 2021 to lift the requirement that patients pick up mifepristone in person, which has permitted patients to receive medication abortion by mail. These states claim this development is dangerous and threatens their right to enforce their abortion bans.
In October 2025, a federal court in Hawaii came to a different conclusion. The court concluded that because mifepristone is very safe, the FDA must reconsider whether the drug necessitates any restrictions at all.
The politics of medication abortion
The dispute over medication abortion is playing out in Washington, D.C., too.
In response to Republicans’ push to restrict or withdraw the availanlity of mifepristone, 47 Democratic senators and 20 attorneys general issued letters supporting mifepristone’s safety. The letters questioned a pledge by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his FDA chief to commence a “review” of the drug. The Democratic senators’ letter pressed the agency to remove all remaining restrictions on mifepristone.
Providers in so-called “shield” states are a key reason for this. Eight U.S. states have laws that shield providers from civil, criminal and professional consequences for delivering reproductive health care to out-of-state patients.
In these shield states, doctors may prescribe abortion medication no matter where the patient lives, so long as that care is delivered by a provider licensed and located in the shield state, complying with the shield state’s laws.
These laws are the subject of legal conflicts between anti-abortion states and shield states.
Late in 2024, Texas sued a doctor in New York, a shield state, for violating Texas abortion and licensure laws. In early 2025, Louisiana indicted the same New York physician.
Texas won its case in a Texas court and then asked New York to enforce the judgment of more than $100,000 in fines and fees. A New York court has refused to do so, citing its shield law. New York also rejected Louisiana’s request to extradite the doctor to stand trial for the same reason.
On Dec. 4, 2025, Texas officially enacted the first bill in the country that explicitly targets shield laws. Passed in September 2025, HB 7 allows private citizens to file lawsuits against a person or entity for attempting or intending to mail abortion pills into the state.
Watch the courts and the FDA
Having written about shield laws extensively, I believe these interstate conflicts will land, sooner or later, before the Supreme Court. Right now, state and federal courts are deciding the issues.
If judges determine that shield laws are unconstitutional or that the FDA acted illegally, courts could substantially alter people’s ability to gain access to medication abortion.
So could the FDA. If it reimposes an unnecessary restriction on mifepristone, meaning the drug would no longer be widely available through telehealth, that decision would curb how 1 in 4 women in the U.S. receive abortion care today.
But opinion polls indicate that the majority of Americans do not think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, and they vote accordingly.
The election of a pro-choice governor and legislature in Virginia, for example, all but guarantees that abortion will continue to be legal in the last Southern state to protect broader abortion rights. Likewise, Pennsylvanians opted to keep the state supreme court’s liberal majority, which struck down the state prohibition on Medicaid payment for abortion.
With little political support to pass a nationwide abortion ban, making it illegal to mail abortion pills is the most immediate way to obstruct reproductive health care in states with abortion bans.
The question for abortion in 2026, then, is: Will courts or federal forces do what democratic processes cannot?
This story was published in collaboration with Rewire News Group, a nonprofit newsroom dedicated to covering reproductive and sexual health.
Earlier I posted some questions on my blog for next year: Ten Economic Questions for 2026. Some of these questions concern real estate (inventory, house prices, housing starts, new home sales), and I posted thoughts on those in the newsletter (others like GDP and employment will be on this blog).
I'm adding some thoughts and predictions for each question.
4) Participation Rate: In November 2025, the overall participation rate was at 62.5%, unchanged year-over-year from 62.5% in November 2024, and below the pre-pandemic level of 63.3% in February 2020. Long term, the BLS is projecting the overall participation rate will decline to 61.1% by 2034 due to demographics. What will the participation rate be in December 2026?
The overall labor force participation rate is the percentage of the working age population (16 + years old) in the labor force. A large portion of the decline in the participation rate since 2000 was due to demographics and long-term trends.
The Labor Force Participation Rate in November 2025 was at 62.5% (red), down from the pre-pandemic level of 63.3% in February 2020, and up from the pandemic low of 60.2% in April 2020. (Blue is the employment population ratio).
From February 2020 to April 2020, 12 million people had left the labor force due to the pandemic. By November 2025, the labor force was about 4 million higher than the pre-pandemic high.
Population growth had been weak in the 2010s, but picked up over the last few years, primarily due to more immigration. However, net immigration slowed in late 2024 and slowed sharply in 2025.
The second graph shows the participation rate for "prime age" workers (25 to 54 years old). The 25 to 54 participation rate was at 83.8% in November 2025 Red), above the pre-pandemic level of 83.0% - and near the all time high of 84.6% in 1999. This suggests there are very few prime age workers that will return to the labor force.
This means demographics will be the key driver of the participation rate in 2026 (barring some unseen event). Demographics will be pushing the participation rate down over the next decade, so, my guess is the participation rate will decline by 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points over the next year to around 62.3% in December 2026.
2025 wasn’t as difficult or as sad as 2024, although that’s not a high hurdle. 2025 still wasn’t a bundle of laughs, something I and maybe you, dear suffering reader, are tired of. But, making myself look on the bright side, there was progress:
In May we moved Mum to a care home near Mary and me. She is so much better than she was and seems settled. Mary and I adopted Mum’s cat, Pippa, who we love. We’ve started the long, slow process of sorting out the old family home. We had lots of repairs and improvements done on the house.
It’s good to remind myself of progress because my mind has not been doing so well, focusing on the bad.
The leaking garage roof was replaced, the outside walls clad in wood, the inside lined with OSB board, electrics added, and work started on a new path at the back of the house.
[Edit: Mary has reminded me that I organised the front door replacement.]
There is more still to do but that is I think/hope the biggest, most expensive, things all done now.
I’ve also attempted to feel happier here by spending too much money on technology: several new speakers, an AV receiver (actually in 2024), and a TV. It is all very nice. And always makes me think of the word cocooning.
§Pips, a couple of days after she came to live with us
I’ve reached the point where my homeopathic levels of work (as Tom aptly described them) are so low that I’ve begun to say I’m “pretty much retired”.
Retiring gradually from freelancing over several years is very different to working full-time and then suddenly stopping. Even when I was pretty busy I usually had gaps between jobs: in my busiest years of freelancing I had paid work for about 170 days, roughly 16 working weeks less than a full-time job. I’ve been very lucky.
I still have bits of work I could (should!) be doing for my one client but this is the first year I’ve started drawing on my savings/investments so it definitely feels like the start of actual retirement, as opposed to simply not doing much work. With a following wind I should be OK financially if I don’t work again which, at age 54, only emphasises my luckiness. Let’s hope the global financial markets aren’t in the middle of a bubble fueled by an oversold technology promoted by self-interested criminal libertarian technoligarchs that’s about to crash taking my retirement funds with them ha ha lol 🙃📉!!!
I don’t know what this being “pretty much retired” means for making use of my time. I’ve had so much practice over the years that I find it very easy to fill the days with … I don’t know what.
For decades I’ve assumed that once I stopped having to work I would carry on making things on the web for myself. The past few years I’ve been less certain of that – sitting at a computer doing anything is less appealing than it once was, and doing the “keeping things running” part of having websites is often the least appealing. ooh.directory has been much neglected this year and I hoped to get more new material added to The Diary of Samuel Pepys than I did. I’ve either been lazy or justifiably easy on myself (given everything else going on in life this year) depending on your point of view.
On the other hand, over the past couple of months I’ve really enjoyed slowly tinkering with a new design for my own site, getting back up to speed with modern front-end development. So the hobby’s not dead yet.
All good, physically. Once I stopped spending more than a third of my time in Essex, and I was at home more consistently, I was able to get back to more consistent gym-going and for the first time in a while felt I was continuing my very gradual progress with weights. Coupled with some Apple Fitness+ yoga, rowing and HIIT, and some Rouvy cycling at home, I’ve been doing alright.
Over the past few months I’ve found TikTok really helpful for picking up tips on good form for all that lifting, hinging, pushing and pulling at the gym. People like PTJAY, Rachel Henley and Sebastian Oreb do good jobs in different ways by demonstrating the correct angles and cues. Things I’d either long forgotten or never realised.
The downside of spending less time in Essex is that I stopped swimming. While I was there I could walk to the local pool in 25 minutes. At home it’s a 25-ish minute drive which, to me, feels much more of a barrier. Given it’s also not quite as nice a pool, I haven’t been at all.
Brain-wise, I haven’t been so good. Feeling trapped, weighed down by responsibilities (which are much lighter than so many people’s), unsure what to do with myself.
When we left London six years ago* I felt I left behind a lot of things that made up my identity: seeing friends, doing acting classes, cycling around town, going to movies, galleries, gigs, etc. I didn’t do a lot of any of that, but some. And what with the past 20 months or so during which I’ve had to focus a lot on looking after parents, and I’m not quite sure who I am these days. It doesn’t feel like there’s much left.
(* Just this afternoon we went to the pub in the next village and a local guy immediately assumed we were visitors. We explained where our house is and he said, “Oh, you’re the new people there!”)
I find myself wishing away the next few decades, wondering if I should start picking out which belongings to take with me to my room in a care home when my turn comes, because everything else is over. Which is silly.
I tell myself progress will be made in 2026. Let’s hope so. For one thing I’m quite tired of writing woe-is-me stuff on my blog. I probably wouldn’t be so open about it if I had co-workers who might embarrassingly read all this, or potential clients to try to impress. So maybe it’s worth describing this mild depression or whatever it is, given I have this freedom but plenty of people don’t. I don’t know if that’s actually useful to anyone, as opposed to being a load of self-indulgent moaning.
And, on this beautifully sunny, frosty day, I’m reminded that there have been moments over the past two or three months when I’ve been sat at home thinking, “This is fine! Peace and quiet, nice scenery, little I have to do… I’ll be perfectly fine here, seeing no-one, going nowhere, doing nothing, for the next 20 or 30 years.” Sounds like back-handed optimism, if that’s a thing, but I’ll take what I can get.
Looking back at TV shows I’ve watched, there are several that were alright, a few that were good (The Diplomat, Severance season two, Riot Women) but almost nothing that was brilliant. The definite highlight was watching all five seasons of The Bureau. It sagged a bit in the last one but otherwise, two thumbs up.
Music was similar this year – very little that really, really grabbed me. My top albums weren’t especially heavily-played, with SMERZ’s Big City Life at the top.
This year I stopped paying for Spotify on the basis I didn’t use it a huge amount, and to encourage me to buy more downloaded music. But it turns out the small amount I did use it, mainly to try out new-to-me music, was very useful and I’ve pretty much stopped doing that at all. Not sure what the answer is there.
I still listen to NTS quite a bit and, while I love certain shows, it’s not often I find a new favourite album or artist from it (although that’s where I heard SMERZ).
Games-wise, I’m still re-playing Red Dead Redemption 2 on the PS4 but very, very sporadically. No other games have grabbed my attention.
I only read 13 books this year. Like so many people, I’m finding it harder to concentrate enough to get into books. My favourite reads were:
I bought an acoustic guitar and started learning to play (again) using the Justin Guitar app. I’m still going, and enjoying it, a couple of months in. This was inspired by taking Mum to the weekly folk music nights at the pub by her care home, which have been the semi-regular social highlight of the year for me. Hopefully one day I’ll be confident enough to accompany her with the guitar.
I’d forgotten I made some resolutions last year. That was careless. I did the opposite of all three.
I also completely failed at my attempt to get things done in 2025 by splitting the year into quarters. I nearly held it together for one quarter but then, events, and I ignored it ever since. In theory sharing plans in public is good for accountability or something. In practice, so often, it just makes me feel worse when I fail at those plans.
So, while there are a few specific things I want to get finished and done this year I’m not writing them down. You can’t fool me again!
This was the year that I finally caved and signed up to store cards (Morrisons, Tesco, Nectar/Sainsbury). I was once heavily opposed to sharing so much data in exchange for pennies. These days I share so much data with anyone and everyone and I started to feel like a mug for not saving ££s on a week’s shopping.
Back in July I added some weather bars on the leaking windows in our conservatory. I think they helped but they certainly didn’t stop water coming in when the rain and wind are combining well.
In November I split and re-potted basil and coriander plants. Most of the coriander didn’t make it – I think it got detached from its roots during the process, but the rest seems to be doing OK.
Whenever a new pull request is submitted to our agent’s GitHub repository,
we run a bunch of CI/CD operations on it.
We run an opinionated linter, we run typechecking, and we run a bunch of unittests.
All of these work well, but none of them test entire workflows end-to-end.
For that end-to-end testing, we introduced an eval pipeline.
The harnesses that run agents have a lot of interesting nuance, but they’re
generally pretty simple: some virtual file management, some tool invocation,
and some context window management.
However, it’s very easy to create prompts that don’t work well, despite the
correctness of all the underlying pieces.
Evals are one tool to solve that, exercising your prompts and tools together
and grading the results.
How we implemented it
I had the good fortune to lead Imprint’s implementation of
Sierra for chat and voice support, and
I want to acknowledge that their approach has deeply informed
my view of what does and doesn’t work well here.
The key components of Sierra’s approach are:
Sierra implements agents as a mix of React-inspired code that provide tools and progressively-disclosed context,
and a harness runner that runs that software.
Sierra allows your code to assign tags to conversations such as
“otp-code-sent” or “lang-spanish” which can be used for filtering conversations,
as well as other usecases discussed shortly.
Every tool implemented for a Sierra agent has both a true and a mock implementation. For example, for a tool that
searches a knowledge base, the true version would call its API directly,
and the mock version would return a static (or locally generated) version
for use in testing.
Sierra names their eval implementation as “simulations.” You can create any number of simulations
either in code or via the UI-driven functionality.
Every evaluation has an initial prompt, metadata about the situation that’s available to
the software harness running the agent, and criteria to evaluate whether an evaluation succeeds.
These evaluation criteria are both subjective and objective.
The subjective criteria are “agent as judge” to assess whether certain conditions were met (e.g. was the response friendly?).
The objective criteria are whether specific tags (“login-successful”) were, or were not (“login-failed”) added to a conversation.
Then when it comes to our approach, we basically just reimplemented that approach
as it’s worked well for us. For example, the following image is the configuration for an eval we run.
Then whenever a new PR is opened, these run automatically along with our other automation.
While we largely followed the map laid out by Sierra’s implementation,
we did diverge on the tags concept.
For objective evaluation, we rely exclusively on tools that are, or are not, called.
Sierra’s tag implementation is more flexible, but since our workflows are predominantly
prompt-driven rather than code-driven, it’s not an easy one for us to adopt
Altogether, following this standard implementation worked well for us.
How is it working?
Ok, this is working well, but not nearly as well as I hoped it would.
The core challenge is the non-determinism introduced by these eval tests,
where in practice there’s very strong signal when they all fail, and strong
signal when they all pass, but most runs are in between those two.
A big part of that is sloppy eval prompts and sloppy mock tool results,
and I’m pretty confident I could get them passing more reliably
with some effort (e.g. I did get our Sierra tests almost always passing
by tuning them closely, although even they aren’t perfectly reliable).
The biggest issue is that our reliance on prompt-driven workflows rather
than code-driven workflows introduces a lot of non-determinism,
which I don’t have a way to solve without the aforementioned prompt
and mock tuning.
What’s next?
There are three obvious follow ups:
More tuning on prompts and mocked tool calls to make the evals more probabilistically reliable
I’m embarrassed to say it out loud, but I suspect we need to retry
failed evals to see if they pass e.g. “at least once in three tries”
to make this something we can introduce as a blocking mechanism in our CI/CD
This highlights the general limitation of LLM-driven workflows, and I suspect that
I’ll have to move more complex workflows away from LLM-driven workflows to get them
to work more consistently
Altogether, I’m very glad that we introduced evals, they are an essential mechanism for us
to evaluate our workflows, but we’ve found them difficult to consistently operationalize
as something we can rely on as a blocking tool rather than directionally relevant context.
1. New data on the economics of LLMs: “Fifth, we estimate preliminary short-run price elasticities just above one, suggesting limited scope for Jevons-Paradox effects.”
Freddie Mac reported that its “National” Home Price Index (FMHPI) increased 0.19% month-over-month (MoM) on a seasonally adjusted (SA) basis in November.
On a year-over-year (YoY) basis, the National FMHPI was up 1.0% in November, down from up 1.1% YoY in October. The YoY increase peaked at 19.2% in July 2021, and for this cycle, and previously bottomed at up 1.1% YoY in April 2023. The YoY change in November is a new cycle low. ...
As of November, 19 states and D.C. were below their previous peaks, Seasonally Adjusted. The largest seasonally adjusted declines from the recent peaks are in D.C. (-4.9%), Montana (-3.2%), and Florida (-2.8%).
For cities (Core-based Statistical Areas, CBSA), 140 of the 387 CBSAs are below their previous peaks.
Here are the 30 cities with the largest declines from the peak, seasonally adjusted. Punta Gorda has passed Austin as the worst performing city. Note that 5 of the 6 cities with the largest price declines are in Florida.
In the week ending December 27, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 199,000, a decrease of
16,000 from the previous week's revised level. The previous week's level was revised up by 1,000 from 214,000 to
215,000. The 4-week moving average was 218,750, an increase of 1,750 from the previous week's revised average. The
previous week's average was revised up by 250 from 216,750 to 217,000. emphasis added
The following graph shows the 4-week moving average of weekly claims since 1971.
Click on graph for larger image.
The dashed line on the graph is the current 4-week average. The four-week average of weekly unemployment claims increased to 218,750.
Interesting article on the variety of LinkedIn job scams around the world:
In India, tech jobs are used as bait because the industry employs millions of people and offers high-paying roles. In Kenya, the recruitment industry is largely unorganized, so scamsters leverage fake personal referrals. In Mexico, bad actors capitalize on the informal nature of the job economy by advertising fake formal roles that carry a promise of security. In Nigeria, scamsters often manage to get LinkedIn users to share their login credentials with the lure of paid work, preying on their desperation amid an especially acute unemployment crisis.
These are scams involving fraudulent employers convincing prospective employees to send them money for various fees. There is an entirely different set of scams involving fraudulent employees getting hired for remote jobs.
By Philip Trammell and Leopold Aschenbrenner, a new paper:
Technological development raises consumption but may pose existential risk. A growing literature studies this tradeoff in static settings where stagnation is perfectly safe. But if any risky technology already exists, technological development can also lower risk indirectly in two ways: by speeding (1) technological solutions and/or (2) a “Kuznets curve” in which wealth increases a planner’s willingness to
pay for safety. The risk-minimizing technology growth rate, in light of these dynamics, is typically positive and may easily be high. Below this rate, technological development poses no tradeoff between consumption and cumulative risk.
In 2025, we published 187 articles, and generated more than 25 million views here at The Honest Broker. Along the way, we launched a new video interview series, hosted by Jared Henderson. (Our motto is: Smart conversations with smart people.) And we’ve also set up shop on YouTube, as well as the leading podcasting platforms.
We continue to attract new readers. Total subscribers grew to 271,525—up more than 35% in the last twelve months. But we’re also reaching a new audience for our videos and podcasts.
Some things haven’t changed here. We still operate as a community, and not a media outlet. We have open forums and engage in smart, civil dialogue in the comments—which are often the best part of the article.
We appreciate your support and participation in this growing community. And if you haven’t become a premium subscriber, please consider doing so. That pays the bills, and allows us to do all the things we do.
Please support our work by taking out a premium subscription (just $6 per month—or less).
There were many highlights to 2025—most notably the posts linked below. Here (in reverse order) are the ten most popular articles from the last 12 months.
Every year, I publish a “state of the culture” overview—around the same time the President gives a “State of the Union” address. This is usually one of my most widely read articles.
This year I looked at the flattening of our web-driven lives. Too many of us have become ensnared by digital platforms that are becoming more authoritarian and sterile with each passing month.
I shared this chart, which captures the bunker mentality now dominating the web.
I initially published this article behind a paywall in August, but later made it available to everybody. I made a number of predictions here, and they all seem to be coming true.
This was the year that everybody showed up at Substack. Magazines like The New Yorker and Billboard joined the platform. Political candidates of all stripes started posting here. Consumer brands launched their own newsletters. And hundreds (or thousands) of journalists left legacy media to find a safe haven here.
In this article, I took the measure of these rapid changes. And I tried to anticipate what will happen next.
The single biggest threat to culture right now is AI slop, which is squeezing out human artists with bot-generated garbage. Most readers here share my disgust, but media outlets are unfazed—even after so many scandals.
The starting point for this article was an embarrassing situation at the Chicago Sun-Times. The newspaper recommended books for summer reading—but the first ten books on their list didn’t exist. They were AI hallucinations.
Anybody with half a brain still intact can grasp the threat this poses. I also shared a KPMG survey which asked people about 14 possible risks from AI. Respondents rated every one of these risks as moderate or high
Silicon Valley is still in denial. And so are the bosses at many culture businesses. This story is ongoing, but I can already tell you that the worst is yet to come.
Until recently, I could tell the difference between real video and AI video. The same was true of AI music and photos. But it’s now hard to identify the robots in our midst.
This article warn how this collapse in metrics of reality will impact us. I identify six symptoms—and you can already see them impacting society. And not for the better.
I never met David Foster Wallace. But I grieved as though I lost a close friend after his suicide in 2008. He had a tremendous impact on my worldview and vocation as an author (or even as a human being).
And I lament his passing more each year—because almost everything he warned about in his writings and interviews is coming true. I wish he were still around to offer his guidance. But we can make a start by paying close attention to what he said while he was around.
I try to summarize it in eight key points in this popular article from September.
During the last year, Google has gradually abandoned its commitment to providing search results. Instead of offering access to many viewpoints, it prioritizes a single AI-generated response. Goodbye diversity and pluralism, hello centralized control from Palo Alto.
Only 8% of the public will pay for AI. What about the rest of us?
We won’t be given a choice. We will be forced to use AI. And it’s already happening.
In this article, I look at the many ways we are manipulated and controlled by huge companies that want to eliminate humans from almost every vocation and sphere of life.
It’s never easy to tell truth from lies. But in 2025, it got almost impossible. In this article, I outlined ten signs of a collapse in our knowledge system.
In the most popular article on The Honest Broker this year, I shared horror stories from classrooms. We heard from teachers, and they aren’t mincing their words:
You guys don’t know what’s going on in education right now. That’s fine—how could you know unless you were working in it? But I think that you need to know….
First of all the kids have no ability to be bored whatsoever. They live on their phones. And they’re just fed a constant stream of dopamine from the minute their eyes wake up in the morning until they go to sleep at night.
Because they are in a constant state of dopamine withdrawal at school, they behave like addicts. They’re super emotional. The smallest things set them off.
When you are standing in front of them trying to teach, they’re vacant. They have no ability to tune in….
They’re not there.
And they have a level of apathy that I’ve never seen before in my whole career. Punishments don’t work because they don’t care about them. They don’t care about grades. They don’t care about college.
And it gets worse in college. One professor caught more than 40% of students cheating—and this was in a class on ethics!
We will have more to say about this in 2026. So stay tuned.
Here are five additional articles that generated lots of interest—but they are partially behind a paywall (available in full for premium subscribers):
Okay, now you’re getting upset. You’re getting upset despite the
fact that we have strict rules against getting upset at this Hertz
location. But tell me, honestly, when you reserved a rental car
through Hertz, you thought… what? That we were going to set aside
a special little car just for you? Seriously? Oh my god.
As everyone filed out, I repeated, in English, some of the
priest’s comments to my guide, Keiko Hatada, who taught English
for 30 years and has led custom tours of Tokyo for the past
decade. I wanted to make sure I had understood things correctly.
I recounted the priest’s admonition to set aside unwholesome
feelings of anger and greed, and work instead to show compassion
and generosity, as well as his reminder that his temple was still
accepting donations for those affected by the 2011 earthquake and
tsunami.
“You told me you didn’t speak Japanese,” my guide said, pleasantly
surprised.
Beyond a few basic greetings and food terms, I don’t.
The new AirPods Pro are the best single expression of Apple as a
company today. Not the most important product, not the most
complicated, not the most essential. But the one that exemplifies
everything Apple is trying to do. They are simple, they are
useful, and they offer features that most people use and want.
Most people use headphones. A lot of people use them every day — in noisy environments. AirPods Pro are — for any scenario where
big over-ear-style headphones are impractical — the best
headphones in the world.
That was before Live Translation, a feature that until recently existed only in science fiction.
The developer of ICEBlock, an iPhone app that anonymously tracks
the presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, has
sued the Trump administration for free speech violations after
Apple removed the service from its app store under
demands from the White House.
The suit, filed on Monday in federal court in
Washington, asks a judge to declare that the administration
violated the First Amendment when it threatened to criminally
prosecute the app’s developer and pressured Apple to make the app
unavailable for download, which the tech company did in October. [...]
To First Amendment advocates, the White House’s pressure campaign
targeting ICEBlock is the latest example of what’s known as
“jawboning,” when government officials wield state power to
suppress speech. The Cato Institute calls the practice “censorship
by proxy.”
Good on developer Joshua Aaron for filing this suit and defending his work.
In the preface to his story, Walters references this quote from Kubrick, from his acceptance speech for the D.W. Griffith lifetime achievement award from the Director’s Guild of America in 1998:
I’ve compared Griffith’s career to the Icarus myth, but at the
same time I’ve never been certain whether the moral of the Icarus
story should only be, as is generally accepted, “Don’t try to fly
too high,” or whether it might also be thought of as “Forget the
wax and feathers, and do a better job on the wings.”
That Zeiss lens/Mitchell BNC was a better job on the wings.
“There is a narrative the Supreme Court is corrupt,” she told Face The Nation. “We saw that emerge in the wake of the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and now we see it that they’re in the tank for Trump. Not only is that narrative over-reported, it is patently false, and it is dangerous for the institution and the public’s faith and confidence in the rule of law.”
Chris has more of Crawford’s quotes. And he makes clear the most telling thing about Crawford’s defense is that she doesn’t even address the arguments against the Court’s practices and behavior. She just asserts it in a ‘the King can do no wrong because he’s the King’ kind of fashion. But this one passage is enough to make the point. Not only is the Court demonstrably not corrupt, Crawford claims, it is also dangerous for the Court to have itself be called “corrupt”. And, she claims, what is dangerous or threatening to this Court threatens the rule of law itself. In other words, you might say, the danger to the state is that child in the third row saying the King is naked.
I’ve been using this language for several years so I feel somewhat addressed, albeit it indirectly. So I wanted to take a moment to note several category errors Crawford makes.
First, when Americans think about “corruption,” they tend to think of venal corruption —bribes and kickbacks and sweetheart deals. But that is only one kind of corruption and it is usually not the most insidious. It is relatively easy, as a law enforcement matter, to at least keep venal corruption within the bounds with prosecutions and deterrents. It is also significantly self-correcting. Justice Thomas should face public accountability certainly. But he is really only hopping on the offered gravy train of people who he would support through his decisions — whether he had to buy his own mobile home or not.
The dictionary definition of corruption focuses on dishonest or fraudulent conduct, usually but not solely involving bribery. The secondary and older definition is the act of taking something in its healthy form, in its prescribed and proper form, and pervert it into something different. The corruption of the Court is bound up with both those definitions. What the current Supreme Court has done is take the proper and constitutional role of the Court and wrench it into something very different. That very different thing is corrupt, unconstitutional and undermines democratic self-government itself. It has moved from a final Court of appeal, which reviews cases and renders decisions by a range of possible jurisprudential philosophies — more conservative or liberal, progressive or libertarian — and changed it into a body which follows no consistent or coherent mode of interpretation or even the most basic procedures and processes for how cases are supposed to make their way from trial courts and finders of fact up through the appellate process. It is a “choose your own adventure” jurisprudence, mixing and matching doctrines based on desired outcomes, frequently manufacturing entirely new ones based on ignoring the explicit language of the constitution itself. And all for the consistent purpose of advancing the partisan and/or ideological interests of the Republican Party.
There is of course a wide range of potentially different ways to make good faith interpretations of the Constitution — ones that are more tightly bound to the text or more expansive in their reading. But this Court has for the last decade, and especially since 2021, been moving at breakneck speed toward an outcome-based approach that is now impossible not to recognize for what it is. Democrats can now see clearly that there is actually no real possibility for democratic self-government in the United States — if and when the American people decide to put Democrats in power. This is a form of corruption far more dire than one or two justices living the high life on some billionaire’s dime.
The reason it is important to identify the Court as corrupt is because it is in fact corrupt. And the most foundational way to preserve the public’s confidence in the legitimacy of the courts is for the courts to, in fact, do their job in a legitimate fashion. It is certainly true that there are insidious forces in any society trying to break down trust in public institutions by various means. But in addition to having a puerile understanding of what constitutes corruption Crawford — and too many others in positions like hers — seem oblivious to the role of substantive behavior and proper conduct as a driver of both public perceptions and reality.
I should make clear that I am focusing on Crawford’s comments not because she’s worse than many others. They just typify a particular point of view which, until the last two or three years, was pervasive within the legal academy and what we might call the elite judicial-academic complex. So I’m actually glad that these defenses are being made publicly because they signal in the clearest way that the battle over the Court’s legitimacy and corruption is being joined. And that battle is the necessary one to fix what is currently broken in the American constitutional system. And the Supreme Court and it’s corruption are the central thing, in that it’s way more important than Trump and Trumpism itself.
This is from The Free Press, and the instructions were to fess up to a mistake made in a piece for The Free Press (not elsewhere). Here is mine:
On October 26 I wrote about President Trump’s $20 billion support package for Argentinian president Javier Milei. At the time I, along with many other economists, thought the bailout was a costly mistake, but so far the decision has been vindicated.
The backstory is that Milei was trying to peg the Argentinian peso artificially high. Such policies usually do not work, even with strong backing from the International Monetary Fund, or in this case the U.S. It felt like the U.S. would lose a lot of money supporting a doomed economic policy. After all, Milton Friedman taught us long ago that floating exchange rates, set by market forces, usually are best.
But Milei stuck to his guns with the peg, an unusual move for a libertarian-oriented reformer, and Trump decided to back him. What happened in the “market test of strength” is that Milei and Trump won. The peg held, and the U.S. government seems not to have suffered any losses from this policy. By December, Argentina announced that it would be softening its currency peg and moving closer to a floating-rate system, as most economists recommend.
Why were the economists—including me—wrong? Maybe we were right ex ante, and Milei and Trump got lucky ex post. An alternative view is that the political symbolism of holding the peg was more important than the economics of the decision, and Milei had insight the economists did not.
When you are not sure why you were wrong, or how wrong you were, that is all the more reason to stay humble.
In this episode of Space Minds, host Mike Gruss is joined by SpaceNews journalists Jason Rainbow, Sandra Erwin, Jeff Foust and Debra Werner for a wide-ranging conversation on the space stories that will define the year ahead.
2025 is drawing to a close, so here’s one last roundup of interesting econ-related items from around the web. I don’t have any podcasts for you this week, but an episode of “Doom Debates” with Liron Shapira will be coming out soon.
1. Why Abundance is good for small business
It always seemed a bit silly that some of the antitrust people decided to start a rhetorical fight with the Abundance people. After all, market power decreases abundance (since there’s a deadweight loss from monopoly). So theoretically these folks should be on the same side.
But for whatever reason, some folks still insist on seeing a contradiction here. For example, Austin Ahlman asks how the Abundance movement will help a small businessperson trying to revitalize his hometown:
And Zephyr Teachout asks what Abundance can offer to small pharmacists struggling in the face of competition from big chains:
I don’t sneer at questions like these; they are good and important questions. I’m a big supporter of small business, which I view as a pillar of the middle class, a provider of variety, and a positive force in urban politics. So I definitely want policies that support it.
In fact, the Abundance idea has a huge amount to offer small businesses. For example, let’s answer Teachout’s question first. Pharmacies face a huge number of regulatory barriers. It’s expensive, difficult, and time-consuming to get a permit to open a pharmacy. Renovating a space costs a lot of money and requires more onerous approvals and permits. There’s plenty of laborious labor regulation that raises the cost of hiring workers. And so on.
These costs function as barriers to entry for businesses. Big chain pharmacies like CVS and Walgreens can easily pay those costs and take the required time; in fact, they’ve already budgeted the costs in. But for small independent pharmacies, these regulatory costs and delays are a huge burden. This puts a thumb on the scale for the big chains, making it a lot easier for them to drive the mom-and-pops out of business.
Abundance isn’t purely a deregulatory project — there’s a lot of other stuff involved — but it definitely wants to reduce these sorts of regulatory overhead costs. That will make it much easier for small businesses to compete.
This also helps answer Austin Ahlman’s question about the businessman trying to revitalize his hometown; reducing regulation will help speed him on his quest. But for a small business in a declining town, demand is more important than regulation. Where will the small businessman get customers?
Abundance can help here too. Building infrastructure — roads, sewers, and electrical grids — will help people move to the declining town and revitalize it. Easy permitting for solar power and transmission will not only give the businessman cheap electricity, but will also lure industry to the area, bringing in workers who will then become the businessman’s customers. And so on.
Abundance is, at its core, an idea that will make it much easier to run a small business. Fortunately, local politicians from Zohran Mamadani to Daniel Lurie are embracing that idea, promising to reduce regulatory costs in their cities in order to help their small businesspeople. “Antimonopoly” intellectuals should pay attention.
2. “Luxury” houses reduce rents for people who live in “affordable” houses
Speaking of abundance, the quest to lower rents by building more housing is starting to bear a little fruit. Emily Flitter and Nadja Popovich report that a few big American cities have built a bunch of housing, and that almost all of these cities have seen big drops in rent. Meanwhile, the cities that build less housing have seen much less of a drop:
Now, correlation isn’t causation, as we all know. But reverse causation is probably not happening here — it makes absolutely no sense that falling rents would spark a building boom. And what other thing could be causing cities like Austin, Raleigh, Phoenix and Denver to both build more housing and have lower rents at the same time? If rents were falling because demand for housing in these cities were falling, we would probably not see housing booms there (and we can just look and see that all of these cities have growing populations anyway).
So unless this pattern is purely random chance, or there’s some other factor that’s hard to imagine, it means that building more housing lowers rents. Which is exactly what the simple, “Econ 101” theory of supply and demand would predict. And which is exactly what careful studies of natural experiments have shown again and again.
Note that as Flitter and Popovich report, the housing being built in these increasingly affordable boom-towns is almost entirely market-rate housing, or what anti-housing activists often pejoratively refer to as “luxury” housing. The activists have trouble understanding how building housing for high-income yuppie types could possibly lower rents. But it’s very simple — if you build places for high-earning yuppies to live, they don’t go bidding on older housing and sparking a price war that pushes middle-class and working-class people out of their homes.
Essentially, high-end housing acts as a “yuppie fishtank” that prevents an influx of high earners from raising rents for everyone else:
You can call this a “trickle-down” effect all you want, but a nasty-sounding label doesn’t change the basic economics of the situation. Building more market-rate housing lowers rents.
3. Why tariffs haven’t crushed the U.S. economy
A lot of people are asking why the U.S. economy has been so resilient in the face of Trump’s tariffs. The effects of the tariffs are evident — import prices are rising, the manufacturing industry is suffering from more expensive inputs, and this may be behind a gradual rise in unemployment. But overall, even though American consumers are incredibly pessimistic on surveys, growth remains solid and employment remains high. What’s going on here? Were economists wrong to warn about the dangers of tariffs? And if not, where is the economic calamity we were promised?
A big piece of the puzzle is that actual tariffs are not nearly as high as the official rates that the Trump administration has announced (to say nothing of the rates Trump was threatening back in April). The statutory tariff rate, calculated using the pre-tariff export mix, was 27.5% in September, but the actual rate U.S. importers were paying was only 14%:
That chart is from Gopinath and Neiman (2025), who explain that the Trump administration has used a large number of carve-outs and exceptions to reduce the economic pain from its own policy:
Specific products or even specific companies (that commit to build manufacturing plants in the United States, say) have been offered exemptions from the tariffs. For example, various semiconductors were granted exemptions from the reciprocal tariffs announced by the United States in early April 2025. As a result…semiconductors have an actual tariff rate of only 9 percent despite a much larger statutory tariff of 24 percent. This same exemption also drives the gap between Taiwan’s 28 percent statutory rate and its 8 percent actual rate…
[Another] key driver of the gap is compliance with USMCA, the trade agreement between the United States, Mexico, and Canada that replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement in 2020. If a sufficient share of a shipment’s value was added inside the three economies, rather than imported into the bloc, the importer can typically declare the goods USMCA compliant and largely avoid tariffs.
A 14% tax is not an incredibly high rate. It’s a very inefficient tax, since it taxes intermediate goods instead of final goods. But it’s not that high of a rate. And imports themselves are not that big of a percent of the U.S. economy — only about 14% in 2024. 14% of 14% is only about 2%.
Raising taxes on the U.S. economy by 2 percentage points, even using an extremely inefficient tax, is unlikely to crush the economy — even when Americans are suffering most of the burden of the tax, as Gopinath and Neiman argue. And the U.S. economy is also getting lucky with the data center boom, which is probably canceling out a significant portion of the demand destruction from tariff-induced pessimism.
That having been said, the pain from tariffs may simply take a while to arrive. Via Marginal Revolution, I see that Besten and Känzig have a new paper studying the historical macroeconomic impact of U.S. tariffs. The authors look at historical tariff policy announcements, and feed these “shocks” into a model of the economy. This is a very imperfect way of studying the impact of tariffs, since the model might be wrong, and the “shocks” might be responding to economic conditions in ways the authors overlook. But the main upshot of the exercise is that most of the impact of tariffs on things like GDP happens after one or two years have passed:
It has only been eight months since “Liberation day”, so we will probably be revisiting this topic a year from now.
4. The U.S. government gets defrauded too often
A lot of ink is being (justifiably) spilled over the Minnesota welfare fraud, in which Somali communities defrauded the Medicaid system out of at least $250 million, and as much as $18 billion. But this is only the biggest and most audacious case of government fraud that has cropped up in recent years.
For example, few people noticed the $1.3 billion Medicare fraud perpetrated by Philip Esformes, who was pardoned by Donald Trump during his first term in office. California was recently found to be suffering from an epidemic of fake community college applications that siphoned millions in educational funds from the state. The food stamp (SNAP) system is defrauded of hundreds of millions every year. Florida’s school voucher system reportedly has no idea where thirty thousand “students” are. Much of this fraud occurs at the state level, where billions of dollars are spent each year with minimal to no oversight.
Unless it gets much worse, the defrauding of the U.S. government is unlikely to impose a significant economic cost on the country — even a few tens of billions of dollars over a decade won’t be missed in an economy that creates tens of trillions of dollars of value each year. (Note: A few investigators believe that Medicare and Medicaid fraud totals up to $100 billion per year. This would be economically significant.) But high-profile cases like these reduce trust in America’s institutions, so preventing them is very important.
Those who believe that the key is to simply elect Republicans will be sorely disappointed. The school voucher fraud shows how schemes designed to outsource government services are inherently vulnerable to fraud. Lots of this fraud could have been caught by having the government hire a lot more auditors, but the GOP tends to slash civil service positions and decrease state capacity. Right-wing schemes like DOGE have notably failed to find significant amounts of waste or fraud; it was the Biden administration that caught the Somali fraudsters in Minnesota. And of course, Donald Trump, who now presides over by far the most corrupt administration in American history, is willing to pardon notorious fraudsters like Esformes. In fact, one of the loudest voices calling for increased oversight of state spending programs is Democrat Ro Khanna.
Tighter auditing of state spending is just one example of how America needs a “trust offensive” — a comprehensive program to increase trust in U.S. institutions.
5. How to get rid of math anxiety (hint: teach people math)
In 2013, my PhD advisor Miles Kimball and I co-wrote a post called “The Myth of ‘I’m Bad at Math’”, in which we argued that de-emphasizing natural talent and emphasizing hard work would lead to improved math education. It remains one of the most popular things I’ve ever written.
I recently happened to see a paper that provides some concrete support for our argument. Ng et al. (2022) find that six weeks of intensive “remediation” — i.e., math tutoring — reduced math anxiety among Taiwanese kids by a considerable amount. The best way to make kids less anxious about math was simply to teach them math and have them do math.
It’s always risky cherry-picking a single paper that supports your priors. And it’s worth noting that the authors find that intensive training improves performance even for students who don’t report high initial math anxiety, which suggests that a lack of time spent on education, rather than anxiety, is probably responsible for a lot of American students’ shortfall in mathematics. But meta-analyses of math anxiety remediation programs find generally positive effects, so I still have confidence that Miles and my article from 2013 was on the money.
This is one more reason to believe that the progressive approach to math education is fundamentally wrong. Progressives have consistently focused on dumbing down math education in order to produce more “equitable” outcomes, resulting in worse education quality across the board. The success of various intervention programs in combatting math anxiety supports the notion that kids are educable, that math is not simply an IQ test, and that what’s needed instead is a culture of hard work and a willingness to invest in education.
6. China, land of robots
China is really big — about four times the size of the United States — which is why it now has the world’s biggest economy by many measures.1 But having the biggest economy and being at the forefront of economic development are two very different things; China is still much poorer than developed nations. That gap won’t be closed for quite a while, if ever.
But despite the country’s lagging living standards, an increasing number of people now see China as the world’s most advanced nation. It may not have big houses and plentiful services, but China has the world’s most impressive infrastructure, and a tech industry that’s leading the world in many areas.
Central to China’s bid to be the “country of the future” is its mastery of an integrated suite of technologies that I call the Electric Tech Stack. The fundamental upstream technologies here are batteries, electric motors, and power electronics — the first two of which China utterly dominates. But we’re now starting to see what that mastery means in terms of downstream applications. The New York Times’ Keith Bradsher recently took a trip to China and wrote a bit about how electric technology is transforming life there:
[China is] rolling out fleets of autonomous delivery trucks, experimenting with flying cars and installing parking lot robots that can swap out your E.V.’s dying battery in just minutes. There are drones that deliver lunch by lowering it from the sky on a cable…
Hefei is one of the first Chinese cities to issue permits for what are basically flying cars. So I booked a ride…The two-seater is piloted remotely, not by someone sitting next to you…They can travel 25 minutes on a charge and go about 80 miles per hour…
Electric vehicles (including models with a tiny gasoline engine for extra range) have accounted for more than half of new-car sales in China every month since March. A subcompact can cost as little as $9,000…New models can charge in as little as five minutes…Essentially, China has turned cars into sophisticated rolling smartphones. Some have built-in karaoke apps so you can entertain yourself while your car does the driving…
We decided to eat in a city park…[W]e used a drone-delivery app to order a fried pork cutlet and a small omelet on fried rice…We returned to the park the next day and ordered soup…[T]he soup stayed warm despite its journey…
While a few U.S. cities have experimented with driverless cars, China leads in the number on the road and where they can operate…Wuhan is one of a dozen or more Chinese cities with driverless taxis. Hundreds now roam most of the city, serving the airport and other major sites…
We had enjoyed Hefei’s airborne lunches, but there’s a lot more autonomous delivery in that city than just food. China still has many intercity truck drivers, but is starting to replace them with robot trucks for the last mile to stores and homes…The trucks look strangely faceless. With no driver compartment in front, they resemble steel boxes on wheels…The trucks go to neighborhood street corners where packages are distributed to apartments by delivery people on electric scooters or a committee of local residents. Larger trucks serve stores.
Much of this story is about China’s regulatory climate. Undeterred by worries over job loss (especially in the face of an anticipated demographic decline starting in the 2030s), China is willing to approve things like drone delivery, driverless cars and trucks, and remote-operated air taxis that Americans and Europeans balk at.
Part of this is also a story about bank loans. Since 2022, China has tried to compensate for the bust in its real estate industry by pouring a flood of cheap loans into any tech industry deemed strategically important — and electric technology and autonomy are at the top of that list. So a lot of these companies doing drone delivery or self-driving trucks are playing with a huge amount of essentially free capital, like when Uber and Lyft were nearly free for Americans back in the mid-2010s.
But a lot of this is a pure technology story. China bet on batteries and electric motors in a way the rest of the world didn’t, and that bet is bearing fruit. Batteries and electric motors make energy fundamentally more portable, in more finely divisible quantities. Thus, a world of batteries and electric motors — coupled with rapid progress in AI, of course — is a world in which much of the “dumb matter” of the world around us starts to get up and walk around on its own.
This March I published a book in Japanese, called Weeb Economy. Half of the book was republished (translated) posts from my blog, and half was a new section. I’ve been publishing that new section as a series of posts (Part I, Part II, Part III). But instead of publishing the final part as a fourth post, I figured I’d just publish the entire new section as a single post. So here you go! This is the entire new section of my book. It’s about a big idea for how to partially reverse the economic stagnation that has gripped Japan since the late 2000s.
Part I: I want the Japanese future back!
Japan lost the future in 2008, not in 1990
When I lived in Japan in the mid-2000s, it still felt very much like “the future”. 3g flip-phones with grainy cameras were far more advanced than anything I had encountered in the U.S. Japanese people had LCD or plasma TVs, while most Americans were still using old cathode-ray machines. Their kitchens had automatic rice-cookers and other appliances I had never seen, and their laptops were higher-performance and far more durable than the ones I had used in the U.S. Their toilets were like something from a spaceship, and their showers could dry clothing. Some people even had digital SLR cameras that could shoot movie-quality video — a miraculous technology I had never even dreamed was possible.
Noahpinion is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
And the cities! Giant screens adorned the sides of buildings, like something out of science fiction. There was always a train station within walking distance that would take me anywhere I wanted to go. The trains were clean and fast and they ran on time, and they even had electronic screens that told you when the train would arrive at the next station. Japanese cars and even motorcycles glided along quietly, where in America they roared and grumbled. Even in the U.S., of course, the most revolutionary, futuristic car — the Toyota Prius — was a Japanese model.
In the 21st century’s opening decade, Japan felt like it had embraced that new century while America was still lingering in the 20th. William Gibson, the celebrated creator of the cyberpunk science fiction genre, wrote this in 2001:
The world's second-richest economy, after nearly a decade of stagflation…still looks like the world's richest place, but energies have shifted…yet it feels to me as though all that crazy momentum has finally arrived…[T]onight, watching the Japanese do what they do here, amid all this electric kitsch, all this randomly overlapped media, this chaotically stable neon storm of marketing hoopla, I've got my answer: Japan is still the future, and if the vertigo is gone, it really only means that they've made it out the far end of that tunnel of prematurely accelerated change. Here, in the first city to have this firmly and this comfortably arrived in this new century - the most truly contemporary city on earth - the center is holding…Home at last, in the 21st century.
Now realize that the Japan of my earliest memories — the early and mid-2000s — was a full decade and a half after the famous bursting of Japan’s economic bubble. I am not hearkening back to the go-go days of the 1980s. By the time Koizumi Junichiro was in office, Japan’s “lost decade” had come and passed, full employment had been restored, and the country had returned to slow but steady economic growth. Despite the overhang of the bubble era, Japanese per capita incomes, measured at international price levels, grew by a respectable 20% between 1990 and 2007:
This was slower than the U.S. or West Europe, but that was mainly due to Japan’s more rapid population aging, which was increasing the percentage of retirees. In terms of GDP per worker, Japan kept pace with other rich countries over this time period, and even outgrew the United States:
And this growth was being felt by regular Japanese people. It wasn’t just fancy gadgetry and big screens. Japanese houses were getting steadily bigger, growing from the tiny “rabbit hutches” of the postwar period into something similar to what Europeans enjoyed:
Japanese people were eating better, too, as local chefs and entrepreneurs took advantage of imported food to create the world’s best restaurant scene, and big new grocery stores like Aeon revolutionized home cooking. Gyms, cafes, and all kinds of public spaces were improving in quality and quantity. Culturally, Japan still felt at the cutting edge, with a vibrant street fashion scene, a golden age of anime and manga, a burst of musical creativity, and an explosion of online culture driven by websites like Niconico.
Given all this, it’s reasonable to ask whether Japan’s so-called “lost decades” after the bubble era were really lost at all. Japan’s catch-up growth had ended, and its living standards were still a bit below the very richest countries like Switzerland or Singapore, but it was solidly within the first rank of nations, and it was still upwardly mobile. It was innovative and vital, at the cutting edge of both technology and culture. And it had accomplished all of this without the kind of deep wrenching disruptions that America experienced after its own real estate bust.
But in the years since 2007, it feels like that Japanese future has been lost. Living standards grew only 6.5% between 2007 and 2022.:
And even that meager amount of growth was entirely due to increased labor input — women, old people, and young people going to work — rather than to productivity increases. In fact, Japanese workers produced less per hour in 2019 than in 2007, falling well behind other advanced nations:
Why did Japan stagnate starting in 2008? It’s not clear. Potential culprits include the global financial crisis,1 the big earthquake and nuclear accident of 2011, the subsequent shutdown of nuclear power, rapid aging, the retirement of the Baby Boom generation, and the ramping up of Chinese competition. Perhaps it was all of these combined. But whatever the reason, 2008 was the turning point.
This doesn’t mean Japan has stagnated in every regard. Its big cities continue to build themselves up, and its restaurants and shops have continued to improve. But when I go back to Japan each year, I can clearly feel the loss of that futuristic vitality that I felt 17 years ago. Japan’s consumer electronics are no longer the cutting edge, having long ago been supplanted by Apple and various other brands. Its auto companies have been caught flat-footed by the switch to battery EVs, and are now — like most Western brands — are in danger of losing the global market to innovative Chinese competitors.
America’s household appliances have caught up and surpassed Japan’s — plenty of American homes now sport Instant Pots, air fryers, sous vide cookers, video doorbells, smart speakers, and so on. Japan still has much better toilets, and there have been some locally specific innovations such as better air purifiers. But for the most part, Japanese homes still feel like they’re stuck in 2007. And that’s not even considering furniture, which tends to be much higher-quality in the U.S.
This does not mean Japan is a bad place to live, or that it’s no longer a rich country. Far from it. In fact, the amenities of life — the safety and friendliness, the visual beauty, the infrastructure, the unparalleled retail experience, and so on — make it extremely pleasant in ways that richer countries often fail to match. And if, like me, you’re a foreigner with an American salary who works remotely and sets his own hours, Japan can feel like a paradise. (In fact, this will be important for my argument in a bit.)
But for average Japanese people, life in Japan is hard to afford. Average real wages have actually decreased since 1996:
The situation is actually not quite that bad, since it involves substantial composition effects — falling labor hours, the retirement of highly paid Baby Boomers, the entry of more part-time workers into the labor force, and so on. In fact, hourly wages have increased by a modest amount. And the rise of women’s employment since 2002 has taken some financial pressure off of many families by adding a second income, just as it did in the U.S. in the 1980s and 1990s.
But the shift to dual-income households can only happen once. Ultimately, stagnant productivity and low overall growth will continue to make life a slog for the average Japanese family. The weak yen, which is caused in part by Japan’s slow growth, will continue to make imports expensive. And as the percentage of the elderly continues to steadily increase, Japan’s working-age citizens will have to toil more and more simply to afford the same standards of living — unless productivity can be raised.
Because being “the future” isn’t just about having fancy gadgets and cool screens on buildings. Technological progress — the development of new products and better production processes — is the ultimate font of a nation’s quality of life. If Japan can reclaim the mantle of “the future” — if it can reach the technological cutting edge across a wider array of products — it can secure an easier, more fulfilling life for its people.
Ultimately that is why I want the Japanese future back.
Stagnation isn’t a criticism; it’s an opportunity
Before I start coming up with ideas and recommendations, I think I should talk a bit about how we ought to think about economic stagnation.
In the years after Japan’s asset bubble burst, lots of authors took the opportunity to publish very harsh criticisms of nearly every facet of Japan’s economy and society. An archetypical work in this genre is Alex Kerr’s Dogs and Demons: The Fall of Modern Japan, published in 2002, which is a laundry list of assorted complaints about Japanese policy and society. Some of those complaints were accurate, while others — such as the idea that Japan killed its tourism industry by developing its cities too much — now look laughable in hindsight.
Right or wrong, though, my sense is that broadsides like Kerr’s, while certainly heartfelt and well-meaning, are ultimately counterproductive. Among those who take the criticisms to heart, they create a feeling of general despair and helplessness. And among those who recognize the flaws in the critiques, they create a siege mentality; many become convinced that people who point out Japan’s economic struggles are “anti-Japan”. Either way, the result is a general pall of pessimism. And if there’s one thing Japan definitely has too much of, it’s pessimism.
Thus, my aim in this particular essay is not to criticize Japan’s corporate culture, government bureaucracy, cabinet policy, or general attitudes. Stagnation is a fact, but we shouldn’t see it as a failing of Japanese society. Instead, we should see it as an opportunity.
Japan is still a developed country, but the years of stagnation since 2007 have given it some of the advantages of a developing country. Being behind the technological frontier means that other countries have done much of the hard work of pioneering new products, new business methods, new production processes, and so on. This gives Japan the opportunity to play a bit of catch-up, which is always easier than advancing the frontier.
From the 1950s through the 1970s, as Japan strove to recover from postwar poverty and to catch up with the U.S., Japanese entrepreneurs in the electronics, automotive, and machine tool industries either licensed technology from more established American companies, used their published research results, or reverse-engineered their products. Today, there is no reason Japanese engineers and entrepreneurs can’t learn from Taiwanese and Dutch semiconductor companies, American AI and software companies, Chinese EV and battery companies, and so on — and then, eventually, surpass them.
Years of wage stagnation and the weak yen have also given Japan another developing-country advantage: low costs. This creates an opportunity for Japan to both attract investment from all over the world, and to increase exports. In fact, both of these are already happening on a limited scale, as Nikkei Asia’s Obayashi Hiroki reported in March 2024:
The depreciating yen is reviving Japan's appeal as a manufacturing hub for goods such as cosmetics, while the lower costs for exporters have bolstered the competitiveness of Japanese rice abroad…South Korea's Cosmax, a contract manufacturer for cosmetics companies, plans to start building its first plant in Japan…Japan is drawing interest from global companies looking for a cost-competitive place to manufacture…
[S]ome Japanese companies are maneuvering to take advantage of the shifting landscape…JVCKenwood, which controls the third-largest global share in professional wireless systems, has repatriated all U.S. capacity to Japan…Manufacturing costs have declined by 30% through lower costs for material and labor.
Another way to put this is that because Japan has fallen a bit behind many other rich countries in terms of productivity, it has the opportunity to experience a period of rapid growth as it catches back up to the frontier. Let’s do a quick calculation. Right now, France’s labor productivity is 61% higher than Japan’s, and grew at 1.26% year from 2009 to 2019. If Japan could catch up to France over the next three decades in terms of both the level and the growth rate of productivity, it means living standards would grow at around 2.86% per year — almost as fast as as in the bubble years of the 1980s. Regular Japanese people would feel like they’re getting richer every year, contributing to a feeling of optimism that has been absent from the country for too long.
Japanese people are far from poor by international standards, but they would certainly enjoy being wealthier. In the 1950s and early 1960s, Japanese households reveled in the chance to have washing machines, televisions, and refrigerators; in the following decade, it was cars, air conditioners, and color TVs. In the 2020s and 2030s, the next set of “sacred treasures” could be futuristic gadgets like electric cars, AI assistants, heat pumps, battery-powered appliances, or personal care robots. They could be simple things like bigger houses, cheaper elder care and child care, and more comfortable sofas. Or they could be something that hasn’t even been invented yet.
A wealthier Japan would also have the opportunity to take more time off of work and indulge in artistic and creative pursuits, like they did in the 1990s and early 2000s. The independent fashion, comics, music, film, art, and animation scenes could flower again. And with more of a cushion of wealth, independent auteurs could take more risks with their careers — the next Shiina Ringo, Kojima Hideo, or Watanabe Shinichiro shouldn’t have to spend their formative years working sixty hours a week at a restaurant just to make ends meet.
In my experience, analyses of Japan’s economic problems tend to ask “What went wrong?”. Was it the financial crisis of 2008, or was it the rise of China? Was it the shutdown of nuclear plants, or was it rapid aging? Was it Japan’s old-fashioned corporate culture, or was it government policy mistakes? And so on. But while the question of “What went wrong?” is certainly of interest to academics, in my mind it is not the question that we should be asking with regards to Japan’s economy right now. Instead, we should be asking “What could go right?”. What could we do right now, in order to make Japan richer?
This is the mindset of a young, hungry developing country. I believe that developed countries could benefit from more of this mindset, and few could benefit more than Japan. Economic growth isn’t something to be maintained out of fear of falling behind. It’s something to aspire to, so that tomorrow will be better than today. Japan now has more to aspire to, and that’s not a bad thing.
Forget about macroeconomics. It’s time for development economics.
When I think of what sort of strategies Japan could use to reclaim the future, I think about development rather than macroeconomics.
Macro policies are what a country uses when there’s a shortage of aggregate demand — idle workers and idle factories, waiting to be called into use. In a rich country, aggregate demand shortages are the main threat to growth. The tools to fight them are monetary easing (having the central bank buy bonds and other assets) and fiscal stimulus (government borrowing and spending).
In the 1990s, after Japan’s real estate bubble burst, the government used both of these policy tools to prevent unemployment from rising too high. And in the 2010s, former Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo and Bank of Japan Governor Kuroda Haruhiko used both of these policies to put more of the Japanese population to work.
Macroeconomic policies — mostly monetary policy — largely succeeded in boosting employment under Abe.2 For most of Japan’s postwar history, between 67 and 70 percent of Japanese adults aged 15-64 were employed; under Abe that increased to 78%:
Housewives and NEETs moved into the workforce, and people took fewer early retirements. In fact, many seniors in Japan started working longer into their golden years.
Abe and Kuroda’s macro policies put the nation to work. This is why Japan was able to eke out a 6.5% rise in GDP per capita between 2007 and 2022, despite zero productivity growth and rapid population aging. But this is the kind of achievement that can only happen once. Essentially everyone in Japan now has a job — there’s no one left to move into the workforce.
That means there’s no more scope for macroeconomic policies to help Japan grow. Obviously, full employment should be maintained, and future recessions will need to be fought. But if Japan is going to boost its people’s living standards into the top rank, it’s going to need microeconomic policy instead.
The standard tools of microeconomic policy are regulatory improvement, tax changes, and innovation policy. These will all be important for Japan. And I also believe that industrial policy — the practice of encouraging specific groups of industries, and even specific industries — will be important as well. Japan used the “developmental state” to great effect in its postwar miracle, and I believe this can help to produce another, smaller miracle today. But the development strategies that work in the 21st century are going to look different than what worked in the 20th.
Multi-strategy development: Try everything at once!
Johnson believes that Japan’s secret sauce was the developmental state — in particular, the old Ministry of International Trade and Industry. He argues that it was Japan’s hyper-competent bureaucrats — selected from the best and the brightest, and motivated by a high-pressure “up-or-out” career path — who engineered Japan’s miracle. The key policies, as he sees it, were A) encouraging cheap finance to increase production for the domestic market, and B) controlling the flow of foreign exchange to encourage heavy industry, and later electronics.
Johnstone, by contrast, believes that MITI simply got in the way of Japan’s true source of growth: private entrepreneurs and inventors. He tells the stories of heroic engineers like Tadashi Sasaki, Iwama Kazuo, Kuwano Yukinori, and Nakamura Shuji, and the bold entrepreneurs who backed their ideas at companies like Sharp, Casio, Soney, and Stanley. Johnstone argues that by focusing on established companies instead of upstarts, MITI ignored or even hindered this historic wave of innovation.
Who is right, Johnson or Johnstone? The likeliest answer, given the many compelling stories that each author uses to make his case, is that they’re both right. Japan’s postwar miracle was not the triumph of a single “silver bullet” theory of development, but a multi-strategy effort. Even as bureaucrats were nudging big old Japanese companies toward the future, private entrepreneurs were doing their own thing. Occasionally these efforts came into conflict over scare resources, but in general they coexisted successfully; rapid productivity growth at home and access to global markets abroad meant that there was plenty of demand for the products of both types of companies.
In fact, this might not have been a happy accident, but an inherent advantage of multi-strategy development. The economists Ricardo Hausmann and César A. Hidalgo have done research showing that a nation’s economic complexity — the variety of different goods and services it produces — is a good predictor of its growth. Japan’s bifurcation into a government-directed big corporate sector and a more freewheeling entrepreneurial sector in the postwar years may have contributed to its economic success, since those two types of companies tend to address different markets and create different kinds of products.
In the end, both types of companies succeeded in the mid- to late 20th century — the Toyotas and the NECs of the world, and also the Sonys and the Sharps. Had either type had failed, Japan’s postwar miracle would have been weaker. Johnson and Johnstone have each grasped once piece of the proverbial elephant.
It’s very likely that the same principle holds true for developed countries. Consider the U.S., whose economy has done better than almost any other rich country in recent decades. Go down the list of the most valuable American companies, and you’ll see relative newcomers like Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, and Google at the top. But scroll just a little farther down, and you’ll see older companies like Eli Lilly (founded 1876), Procter & Gamble (founded 1837), Johnson & Johnson (founded 1886), and General Electric (founded 1892).
Even the most entrepreneurial countries don’t replace most of their older firms; they simply add to the list. Apple and Google added huge value to the American economy, but they didn’t do it by replacing the likes of Eli Lilly or General Electric; instead, they opened up new markets and developed different kinds of products. A few of America’s old companies withered and died, but many succeeded in improving their operations, sustaining their innovation, adopting new technologies, modernizing their management styles, and continuously looking for their own new markets. Even Microsoft, which was a hard-charging startup just a few decades ago, recently had to reinvent itself as a cloud computing company in order to maintain its position.
The lesson here is that a successful development push shouldn’t put all its eggs in the basket of a single overriding theory. Because we don’t know in advance what will work, various approaches and models should be tried in parallel in order to improve productivity. Just as a basketball team needs both three-point shooters and “slashers” who drive to the paint, a country’s economy needs multiple ways to attack the problem of development.
Japan’s pincer attack against stagnation
In fact, there are signs that Japan is already beginning its industrial revival, and we can see at least two different strategies at work. Roughly speaking, these are A) revitalizing existing Japanese companies through changes in corporate governance, business strategy, and labor practices, and B) developing new companies by encouraging startups.
In her 2020 book The Business Reinvention of Japan, Ulrike Schaede argues that the first of these is going well. She explains how some large Japanese companies like FANUC, Mitsubishi Electric, and Fujifilm have streamlined themselves by selling off many non-core competencies, and how they’ve carved out defensible, profitable export niches for themselves by making high-tech components and materials. She cites policies like Japan’s new Corporate Governance Code and Stewardship Code, as well as former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s rhetorical focus on increasing corporate profits, as having contributed significantly to this revival. She also cites financial innovations like the JPX-Nikkei 400 stock index, which selectively highlights and promotes companies based on various measures of profitability.
There is some evidence to support Schaede’s view. Japan’s corporate profits have seen a revival since the early 2010s:
As James Montier and other have pointed out, a lot of this has been from corporate deleveraging; operating profits, which give a better indication of a company’s long-term economic strength, have increased by a more modest amount. But the trend is definitely in the right direction!
And investors have recognized corporate Japan’s revival. The Nikkei 225 stock index has been on a tear recently, outpacing other world stock markets by quite a bit, and finally reattaining the heights of the bubble period:
As Schaede and others have shown, much of this increase comes from greater foreign demand for Japanese stocks, meaning that the world is betting on Japan, Inc.
Meanwhile, although Japan no longer has a trade surplus, its exports have been rising:
Meanwhile, signs of changes in Japan’s traditional corporate culture are starting to emerge. One key shift is the move away from lifetime employment toward mid-career hiring. Nikkei Asia reports:
Japanese companies will fill 37.6% of job openings with midcareer hires this fiscal year, a Nikkei study shows, the share representing the largest-ever shift away from Japan's traditional lifetime employment model…The ratio of midcareer hiring had hovered in the teens until fiscal 2017, then rose rapidly until topping 30% five years later.
So far, surveys suggest that a little over half of Japanese job-switchers are happy with the outcome.
Another big shift is the rise in female managers. Although Japan isn’t close to hitting the 30% target that former Prime Minister Abe set out, the number has steadily risen, and stood at around 15% in 2021.
Meanwhile, hybrid work is becoming more popular. According to one recent survey, over 70% of Japanese workers now work at least one day a week outside the office. This will probably help Japanese companies shift from a focus on work inputs to work outputs, since remote work inherently rewards completion of concrete tasks rather than the number of hours an employee sits at their desk. That will eventually help boost productivity.
Corporate Japan is slow to change, but it is changing.
This is all good, and should be counted as a success for Abenomics and for Japanese management. But so far the revolution in corporate profits, stock prices, and exports hasn’t been enough to revive real wages or productivity in the aggregate. Japan needs other strategies in addition to Schaede’s “aggregate niche” strategy.
In his 2023 book The Contest for Japan’s Economic Future, Richard Katz outlines a radically different strategy for Japan’s economic revival. He doubts that big corporations will ultimately be nimble enough to reinvent themselves en masse, noting that in the U.S., there’s high turnover among the biggest companies. Instead, he places his faith in high-growth startups, sometimes known as “gazelles”. He cites entrepreneurs like Minami Soichiro of the job-matching company Visional and Matsumoto Yasukane of B2B e-commerce platform Raksul, and the “intrapreneurial” corporate culture at Recruit, as examples of how innovative companies can carve out new business niches.
In fact, Japan’s venture-funded startup industry has been experiencing somewhat of a boom in recent years — although like most other countries, it took a hit in 2022.
Kenji Kushida has a good series of posts at the Carnegie Endowment, explaining the changes in Japan’s startup ecosystem and its venture capital industry. He points out that although Japan’s VC industry trails the U.S. by a lot, it’s about equal in absolute size to that of Germany, the UK, South Korea, or France. He also shows that the world of startups is gaining more prestige, talent, and autonomy in Japan — independent VCs are eclipsing in-house corporate investors, founders are increasingly being drawn from the ranks of top universities and companies, and there are the beginnings of a virtuous cycle where successful founders become investors themselves.
But despite some very real improvement, Japan still has a lot of opportunity to increase entrepreneurship. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor shows Japan lagging many other rich countries in terms of total entrepreneurial activity as of 2022:
Katz suggests a number of concrete policy changes that could encourage more high-growth startups — tax breaks for angel investors and LLCs, government procurement contracts for young companies, administrative guidance to increase bank loans to startups, policies to encourage open innovation, and so on. These are all ideas worthy of consideration, and wouldn’t be very hard to implement.
Katz also calls for government to rescue fewer failed companies with tax-funded bailouts — something I’ve also long advocated, and which research shows is a problem. In fact, the Japanese government has been moving in this direction:
Japan's government is willing to let more underperforming companies fail, three senior government officials told Reuters, a previously unreported acknowledgment that they said reflects an urgent need to replace sclerotic businesses with those able to deliver growth…The move will help Japan channel workers and investment to its most productive companies in a tight labor market, boosting wages, said the officials, granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue.
There are plenty of ways to protect Japanese workers from these necessary changes. Japan is already developing a robust private equity industry and a culture of domestic M&A that helps preserve jobs by incorporating less successful Japanese companies into more successful ones. On top of that, Katz suggests the creation of a Danish-style flexicurity system to help individual workers, which sounds like a great idea.
Schaede and Katz have thus identified two very different approaches to Japan’s economic revival. And unsurprisingly, there is some disagreement between the two as to which model is better.3 Interestingly, the two sides of the argument are much the same as between Johnson and Johnstone a generation earlier — Schaede places her faith in government policy that nudges big business toward the right markets and products, while Katz places his faith in independent entrepreneurs.
And just as with Johnson and Johnstone, it’s likely that both sides are correct. Yes, big old companies and fast-growing startups compete for resources like bank loans and engineers, and occasionally they even compete in product markets as well. But this competition is ultimately less important than how the two types of companies complement each other.
New Japanese companies will provide crucial inputs to older ones — to use two of Katz’ favorite examples, Visional and Raksul help older Japanese companies with hiring and purchasing, respectively. If Japan manages to build a software industry, Japanese manufacturers and service companies will likely be big beneficiaries. And so on.
Japan’s entrepreneurs will also be able to exploit export niches that older companies miss, because the initial market is too small. This is exactly what Sharp did with digital calculators and LCDs, what Seiko did with quartz wristwatches, and what Yamaha did with digital synthesizers. (These companies were not startups when they pioneered these famous products, but the principle is the same.) Sometimes the new products will disrupt old companies’ business models, but often they’ll just create new markets and add to Japan’s list of competencies.
Finally, new and old companies will be able to share ideas with each other — innovations in management, production techniques, marketing leads, physical technologies, and so on — via the boom in mid-career hiring. Employees take their knowledge with them when they move. Startups can hire people from big companies who are too restless, disaffected, or ambitious to work their way up the corporate ladder. And big companies can hire employees from startups who are looking for a more secure paycheck, bigger research budgets, and a larger support staff. In a way, mid-career hiring and open innovation can make a whole industry, a whole city, or even a whole country into one large keiretsu.
But there’s a third group of companies that can be incredibly useful to this process. And they represent a third strategy for Japan’s economic redevelopment, which the writers I mention above — as brilliant as they are — don’t really discuss. I’m talking about foreign companies and foreign entrepreneurs who use Japan as a base for production.
Already we can see this third strategy start to materialize. The first place to look is Kumamoto.
Part II: FDI is the missing piece of Japan’s puzzle
The Kumamoto miracle points the way
The semiconductor industry is probably the most important industry in the world. Computer chips are absolutely essential to every high-value product in a modern economy — autos, rockets, appliances, machinery, everything. They’re also of crucial military importance, in an age where precision weaponry rules the battlefield. And they’re of core importance to emerging technologies like AI — whose vast computational resources require enormous data centers — and biotech.
As a result, it’s no wonder that the world’s major economies have been fighting over the semiconductor industry for generations. In the early days, the U.S. and Japan were the clear leaders. Much of the industry involves the design of semiconductors and the production of specialized tools and materials, and in these upstream parts of the industry the U.S. and Japan are still strong. But in the most important downstream part of the process — the actual fabrication of the most advanced chips — both the U.S. and Japan have lost their lead to Taiwan:
Specifically, they have lost their lead to one remarkable Taiwanese company: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. TSMC are essentially the world’s greatest machinists. Other companies design the chips, and other companies create the (incredibly advanced) machine tools that make the chips. What TSMC does is to buy the tools, and then use the tools with incredible ingenuity and efficiency to make someone else’s chips designs into reality. They pioneered this “pure-play foundry” business model, and it has made them rich — and it has allowed Taiwan to outcompete the chipmaking industries of every other country on the planet.
Since the pandemic, the global battle to win semiconductor market share has intensified, due to the advent of AI and to the geopolitical competition between China and the democratic countries. Japan, like many countries, is trying to build its own foundry business, in the form of Rapidus, a joint venture between a bunch of Japanese companies that’s also getting some help from IBM. But — also like in the U.S. there’s also a second, parallel effort afoot. Japan is building chips for TSMC.
In late 2021, TSMC created a Japanese subsidiary called Japan Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing (JASM), and started building two fabs in Kumamoto prefecture. Sony and Denso pitched in to help. So did the Japanese government, providing billions of dollars in subsidies and offering TSMC logistical assistance in finding local workers and ensuring adequate water and other infrastructure. The first plant was completed very quickly, and opened in February 2024; the second is expected to open in 2025. Now TSMC is considering a third fab in Kumamoto, producing even more advanced chips, to be opened in 2030.
Observers have been impressed with the speed with which the fab was built, comparing it favorably to TSMC’s plant in America, which initially suffered delays.4 TSMC credited the successful construction to a variety of local supporting institutions — “suppliers, customers, business partners, government and academia.” TSMC’s founder Morris Chang, who once poked fun at Japan for the slow speed of its business dealings, has now become a true believer in the revival of the country’s chip industry. At the opening of the first TSMC plant in Kumamoto, Chang predicted a “renaissance of semiconductors” in Japan.
And Japan isn’t stopping with TSMC. Micron, an American chip company, is building a fab in Hiroshima, bringing some of its best technology into the country.5Samsung is building a semiconductor development center in Yokohama. Both of these investments are being done with significant help from the Japanese government, and involve cooperation with Japanese companies and universities.
These investments by foreign companies aren’t Japan’s only strategy for reviving its semiconductor industry — they coexist alongside homegrown efforts like Rapidus, as well as Japan’s upstream efforts in the chipmaking tool and materials industries. But they represent a crucial addition to the purely indigenous efforts. This is an example of multi-strategy development at work.
But it’s far from the only such example.
A school of AI fish
The artificial intelligence boom is the most important trend in the software industry right now. Whether this remains true in future years remains to be seen, of course, but the capabilities of large language models like ChatGPT, AI art software like Midjourney, and computer vision systems are undeniable. Even if there’s a bubble and bust in the field at some point — as there was with dot-com companies in 2000 — AI is going to be important in the long term.
Japan largely missed out on the internet software boom — the country has no internationally dominant consumer internet giants like Google or Facebook, and its B2B software industry was hampered by Japanese companies’ slowness to adopt IT solutions in past decades. But the AI age is a new dawn, and Japan has another shot at building a powerful software industry.
At the time of this writing, one of the most interesting AI startups in Japan is Sakana AI. Currently, AI applications generally use one large statistical model to generate text, create images, recognize objects, predict the shape of a protein, etc. Sakana tries to instead use groups of smaller models to accomplish the same thing. In addition to being able to do some things better than big models, these groups of smaller models may use much less electric power — an important consideration, when AI’s energy needs are skyrocketing.
Sakana AI has three founders. There’s Llion Jones, originally from Wales, who was one of the authors of the groundbreaking 2017 research paper that discovered the algorithm now used to make LLMs. There’s David Ha, originally from Canada, who was an AI researcher at Google Brain. And there’s Ito Ren, a Japanese former diplomat who was an executive at the e-commerce company Mercari.
The company’s investors are equally international — it includes American venture capital firms like Khosla Ventures, Lux Capital, and New Enterprise Associates, the American semiconductor giant Nvidia, and a large assortment of Japanese banks and technology companies. Sakana’s most recent funding round raised $214 million, and valued the company at $1.5 billion.
That’s not a huge valuation compared to U.S. giants like OpenAI ($150 billion) or Anthropic (possible valuation of $40 billion). But Sakana’s presence has put Japan on the map as a potential hotspot for international AI investment. Nvidia, for example, has declared its intention to create an R&D center in Japan. OpenAI has opened a branch office in Tokyo. Oracle is investing $8 billion over the next decade in AI and cloud computing in Japan. This is in addition, of course, to all the big cloud providers — Amazon, Microsoft, and Google — looking to invest in Japan in order to serve the Japanese market.
Then there’s Spellbrush, a U.S. startup that has a partnership with the AI art and design company Midjourney. Spellbrush uses generative AI to create Japanese-style anime art — one of the most popular and lucrative applications for AI so far. Spellbrush recently opened a branch office in Tokyo’s Akihabara neighborhood.
Japan is still behind the U.S. and China in AI, but investments like these keep it in the game.
It’s important to note that although Sakana AI might succeed, the most likely outcome is that the company will fail. This is true because most startups fail in general, and because in a rapidly changing new industry like AI, the failure rate is likely to be even higher. In fact, the entire AI industry may be headed for a significant bust, like the dotcom crash in 2000.
But this shouldn’t negate the importance of Sakana, or of the Japanese AI boom in general. First of all, though most startups fail, the few that succeed often grow very large and important — venture investing is about accepting many failures in order to find a few huge wins. The investment and attention that Sakana draws to the Japanese AI startup scene will help make sure that some of those successes happen in Japan. Even a general AI bust will likely only be a temporary setback to the industry, as with the dotcom crash and the subsequent recovery.
Second, even failed startups often contribute crucial innovation to a country’s ecosystem. Fairchild Semiconductor wasn’t successful, but it pushed the envelope of semiconductor technology forward, and some of its alumni went on to found Intel. General Magic tried and failed to invent the smartphone in the 1990s, but its alumni went on to help create the iPhone.
And third, Sakana sends a signal that Japan is a viable destination for international investment in the software industry in general, well beyond AI. Japan is generally weak in most areas of IT, including B2B solutions, consumer internet companies, and cloud computing providers. As in semiconductors, a wave of foreign entrepreneurs and foreign funding could help Japan shore up its weak spot in software.
The most important kind of FDI
The chipmaking projects by TSMC, Micron, and Samsung, the U.S. VCs’ investment in Sakana AI, and the branch offices of companies like OpenAI are all examples of foreign direct investment, or FDI. But they’re not the only type, and when people talk about FDI, they often mean something very different. In fact, it’s actually a bit of a confusing term, because it encompasses multiple unrelated categories of investment.6 FDI includes:
Cross-border real estate purchases
Acquiring a foreign company (M&A)
Building a branch office or factory in a foreign country (“greenfield” investment)
Most writers who advocate for Japan to increase FDI focus on the second of these. They believe that allowing more foreign acquisition of Japanese companies will improve these companies’ productivity by transferring foreign management techniques.
I am agnostic concerning this argument. I recognize that Japan’s policymakers and businesses have many reasons for resisting foreign acquisitions, both as part of the country’s development strategy and part of its social policy. Foreign buyers might downsize Japanese companies by firing large numbers of employees, which would hurt Japan’s corporation-centric social welfare model. They might strip-mine Japanese companies for their technology or other assets and then sell them off as husks of their former selves, as happens all too often with leveraged buyouts in the United States. Or they might simply neglect their Japanese acquisitions until they stagnated.
Instead, my argument is that Japan should focus specifically on increasing and promoting greenfield FDI — foreign companies building their own branch offices and factories in Japan. And in particular, Japan should encourage greenfield platform FDI, in which a foreign company builds factories or offices in Japan in order to create goods and services that are then exported from Japan to a third country. TSMC’s chip fabs in Kumamoto are an example of greenfield platform FDI.
This particular kind of FDI offers a lot of benefits that foreign takeovers don’t. For one thing, greenfield FDI usually directly adds to the economy — when a foreign company builds a factory in Japan, or even just purchases office equipment for a new office, that represents real money that goes directly into Japanese people’s pockets. And greenfield FDI inevitably results in the hiring of more Japanese workers, since someone has to work at the new factory or office branch.
Investment spending and workers’ salaries in turn stimulate the surrounding local economy — already, Kumamoto is experiencing an economic boom. Note that M&A doesn’t necessarily accomplish any of this — it just changes ownership of existing businesses, without requiring any new investment, hiring, or spending on the local economy.
And greenfield FDI is also more likely to be received warmly by the Japanese public. Ito, Tanaka, and Jinji (2023) find that Japanese people feel more positively about greenfield FDI than about foreign acquisitions:
This study empirically examines the determinants of individuals’ attitudes about inward foreign direct investment (FDI) using responses from questionnaire surveys that were originally designed. Individuals’ preferences for inward FDI differ between greenfield investments and mergers and acquisitions (M&A), and people are more likely to have a negative attitude toward M&A than greenfield investments. People with a negative image of the so-called “vulture fund” for foreign capital tend to oppose inward FDI, and this is more pronounced for M&A than greenfield investments.
On top of all this, greenfield platform FDI has a very good economic track record. It has been key to the economic success of a number of developing countries — most notably China, but also Poland and Malaysia.
After China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, companies from around the world flocked there to set up factories — both to sell their products to a billion newly available Chinese consumers, but also to exploit what at the time were cheap Chinese labor, land, energy, and capital costs, in order to make products for export to the rest of the world. This is known as “platform FDI”.
Poland executed a similar strategy on a smaller scale, becoming a factory floor for European nations — especially Germany — looking for lower costs and more friendly regulation. Malaysia became a center of electronics manufacturing, with investments from the U.S., Singapore, Japan, and elsewhere. In both of these cases, the products of foreign-owned factories were largely sold abroad, since both Poland and Malaysia have relatively small domestic markets. FDI thus helped to make China, Poland, and Malaysia into export powerhouses.
Japan, of course, is in a very different economic situation than China, Poland, or Malaysia were in the 2000s. But it can still learn from their successes. In addition to the direct benefits for investment and employment, greenfield platform FDI offers two main advantages: it can increase a country’s exports, while also facilitating technology transfer. In its current economic situation, Japan could use a whole lot of both of these things.
Japan needs exports
Americans often think of Japan as an export powerhouse, because of the international success of brands like Toyota, Honda, Sony, and Panasonic. And during the early days of the postwar miracle, Japan’s bureaucracy did strongly encourage exports, in order to earn precious foreign currency. But in fact, this lingering stereotype is badly mistaken — Japan has never really been an export-oriented economy like Germany or South Korea. It’s a domestically focused economy, more like the United States:
As Chalmers Johnson recounts in MITI and the Japanese Miracle, this inward focus was part of Japan’s development model in the 1960s. MITI found that ensuring cheap bank loans to domestic companies, and promoting competition in the domestic market, was a way to quickly boost Japan’s investment rate and its capital stock. And they found that this approach also ensured an adequate level of exports, since Japanese companies would produce more than they could sell in the domestic market, and export the excess capacity overseas.7
Now, Japan finds itself badly in need of exports. The first reason is that exports help increase the value of the yen, making Japanese people richer as a result.
Japan’s currency has weakened dramatically against the dollar and other world currencies. This is partly because of Japan’s low interest rates relative to other rich countries, which is driven by Japan’s low inflation (and probably by a need to keep Japanese government borrowing costs low, in order to make Japan’s very large government debt sustainable).
As a result of the weak yen, Japanese people are finding it increasingly difficult to afford imports. Japan imports most of its food and energy, so the weak yen is increasing the cost of daily life. Japanese companies are having trouble importing the parts and materials they need, as well as energy. The Japanese government has been forced to intervene to prop up the value of the yen. But such interventions can’t last forever, since they require selling off foreign assets — eventually, the government runs out of foreign assets to sell, and the currency crashes even more.
An increase in global demand for Japanese exports can help increase the value of the yen.8 This is because in order to buy Japanese goods and services, foreigners need to swap their currencies for yen. This increases the demand for the yen, which pushes up its value. The more exports Japan sells, the stronger the yen becomes. Ultimately, Japan’s currency problem probably can’t be fixed by exports alone — financial outflows will have to be addressed as well. But exports help.
The second reason for Japan to focus on exports is that the domestic Japanese market is shrinking. Japan’s population is forecast to fall substantially over the remainder of this century:
Mass immigration may slow this trend, and measures to increase the birth rate may eventually manage to reverse it. But whether that will ever happen is unknown, and even if it does, Japan will not be a major growth market for a long while. This means there is much less incentive for companies — Japanese or foreign — to invest in Japan in order to serve the domestic market than in the past. Less investment also means less spending on R&D, which causes Japan to fall behind technologically.
Exporting can help reduce this problem, or even solve it. The more Japan becomes an attractive platform for export production, the more reason there is for Japanese companies and foreign companies to invest in Japan, including investments in R&D and new technologies. This will help increase productivity.
Finally, the activities required to increase exports may improve productivity. There’s a lot of research on “learning by exporting” — entering foreign markets could teach Japanese engineers, product designers, and managers how to produce things that foreigners want to buy. This could help counter the so-called “Galapagos syndrome” — the tendency of Japanese product standards to drift away from international standards, shrinking the markets available to Japanese companies.
Another way to put this is that exporting allows companies based in Japan — whether domestically owned or foreign-owned — to achieve scale without exacerbating competition that drives down prices.
Greenfield platform FDI — like TSMC’s fabs in Kumamoto or American venture capitalists’ investment in AI startups in Tokyo — can help Japan become more of an export powerhouse. Okubo, Wagner, and Yamada (2017) find that foreign-owned factories in Japan tend to export more — and also to innovate more. Their explanations for the difference have to do with corporate governance and culture, and with the pool of employees that foreign-owned companies are able to hire. They write:
Foreign ownership may play a role in risk-taking choices of companies – such as exporting and innovating – for various reasons. It can provide companies with more information about the outside market, especially in the context of small and medium enterprises. Foreign owners may be keen on getting high returns on investment and may tolerate a higher risk level. Firms with foreign ownership may have greater access to funds. Also, firms that do allow foreign ownership may experience a more open corporate culture than firms that do not, and such open culture may facilitate risk-taking.
The simplest explanation here is that multinational companies — especially those with foreign employees — simply know a lot more about global markets. TSMC knows what kind of computer chips Nvidia and Apple want to buy. Sakana AI’s founders keep in touch with the American AI market, and understand what kind of capabilities U.S. companies want from AI models. And so on.
In other words, greenfield platform FDI is a perfect example of multi-strategy development. It means that instead of coming into Japan to compete with local companies in the Japanese market, foreign companies are helping Japan sell a bunch of new products to a bunch of new overseas customers.
The intangible benefits of FDI
Japan’s low levels of productivity are somewhat of a mystery to researchers. Nakamura, Kaihatsu, and Yagi (2018), a trio of researchers from the Bank of Japan, arrive at the frustrating conclusion that the biggest problem is a lack of “intangible assets” at Japanese companies. These are any non-physical assets — brand reputation, patents, software, long-term customer relationships, management know-how, worker skills, tacit technical know-how, and so on.
This is such an enormously broad and heterogeneous category, and so many of its components are hard to measure, that “intangible assets” basically ends up becoming a label for economists’ ignorance about what makes some companies more valuable than others. For example, Nakamura et al. note that Japanese companies spend quite a lot on R&D, but don’t seem to get nearly as much value for their spending as U.S. companies do.
So the mystery remains a mystery. But even if we don’t quite know what the most important intangible assets are, we still might be able to help companies get more of them. Nakamura et al. suggest a fairly standard, reasonable list of approaches — increasing labor mobility, improving corporate governance, allowing more lagging companies to fail, and improving the venture capital ecosystem. These are all reasonable approaches, and — as we saw above — they’re all things that Japan is already trying to some greater or lesser degree.
But there’s one strategy that seems to be flying a bit under the radar here: FDI. When foreign companies put their factories, offices, and research centers in Japan, they bring many intangible assets with them — foreign management techniques, technical tricks and know-how, connections to customers and suppliers in other countries, and so on. And these can, for the most part, be pretty easily transferred to Japanese companies.
One way, which has been thoroughly documented by researchers, is through interactions with local suppliers. When a company like TSMC puts a semiconductor fab in Japan, one reason is so that it can buy a bunch of specialized tools and components from Japanese suppliers — like the photoresist that Japanese companies are so famous for. This in turn teaches Japanese suppliers what the leading chip companies need and how to best serve them, as well as details about how the best chipmaking tools work. Those kinds of knowledge are both intangible assets.
Another way ideas spread is through job-switching. TSMC’s fab is going to employ a bunch of Japanese workers. Those workers are going to get the chance to learn how to make chips from the very best in the business. If some of them eventually leave to go work at Japanese semiconductor companies, they’ll take all that knowledge with them. This sort of knowledge transfer would have been harder in the old days, when Japan was still under the lifetime employment system. But now, with mid-career hiring on the rise, it’s very likely.
Let’s imagine an example of how this might work. Suppose you’re a Japanese AI researcher at a domestic AI startup. You and your team know a lot about AI models, from reading research papers, from building them yourself, and maybe from going to some conferences overseas. But for some reason your models aren’t quite as good as foreign companies’ models. The foreigners must have a bunch of little tricks they use to make things work better.
Then one day your company hires another researcher who worked at Sakana AI. Your new colleague knows a lot of those tips and tricks for making models work more smoothly, from having worked with some of the top researchers at Sakana. And their time at Sakana also gave them personal connections with a bunch of other researchers overseas, whom you can now call up and ask for help solving your model’s problems.
Congratulations! You’ve just transferred tacit knowledge for free. Your company’s intangible assets have increased.
If this example sounds contrived, consider how many of Japan’s most famous inventions came through interaction with foreigners and absorption of foreign knowledge. Japan’s Canon cooperated with America’s Hewlett Packard in the 1980s to create laser printers. Yamaha created the digital synthesizer with the help of a Stanford engineer named John Chowning. The famous inventor Sasaki Tadashi licensed American patents to help him invent the first commercially viable pocket calculator.9
Those are all examples from the book We Were Burning. In other words, in the 20th century, close links between Japan and the U.S. created a vibrant international research community, where ideas flowed back and forth across borders and across companies.
In fact, there’s evidence that this is a consistent pattern when it comes to FDI. Todo (2006) and Kozo (2006) both find that FDI consistently leads to positive productivity spillovers to the country that receives the investment, and that these spillovers are closely related to R&D spending.
Observers of the Japanese economy have noted with dismay how it seems to be losing human contact with other developed economies. Few Japanese people study abroad these days, and those that do tend to go only for a very short period of time. The number of Japanese young people who want to work abroad has diminished. Collaboration between Japanese scientists and their foreign counterparts has decreased, contributing to a decline in Japan’s high-quality research output. Even as the international research community has grown larger, Japan has been pulling away from it.
Greenfield FDI can help counter that increasing insularity, by bringing foreign researchers and managers into Japan, where Japanese people can absorb their knowledge without leaving the country.
Japan is welcoming the right kind of FDI, but it can do more
Why has greenfield FDI in Japan traditionally been very small? In the early days of its postwar miracle, Japan restricted all kinds of FDI for protectionist reasons, in order to reserve the domestic market for Japanese companies that were still in their early growth stages. This was a typical policy for the time, and not dissimilar from the “infant industry” protections used by the U.S. in its early development.
From the late 1960s through the early 1970s, Japan significantly liberalized its restrictions on FDI. There were still many institutional barriers to foreign acquisitions, mostly resulting from a combination of Japan’s financial and corporate governance systems, and from cultural resistance. But although foreign companies should, in theory, have had an easier time doing greenfield M&A from the 1970s onward, few took the plunge. There are lots of possible reasons for this — force of habit, regulatory differences between countries, cultural differences, and a general stereotype of Japan as a protectionist economy. But the most important reason was probably that unlike countries like China, Poland, or Malaysia, Japan simply didn’t try to actively encourage foreign companies to use it as a production base.
Since 2003, though, the situation has slowly changed. Former Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro called for more FDI into Japan. Regulations were eased a bit, and tax incentives were put in place. These efforts were minor and halting at first, but have gathered strength over time. Targets have become much more ambitious — in 2023 the government set a goal of attracting 100 trillion yen of FDI (about $690 billion as of this writing) by 2030. Politicians now talk regularly about the need to boost FDI. Immigration laws have been changed to make it much easier for skilled professionals to get permanent residency. There is a new Council for the Promotion of Foreign Direct Investment in Japan, and various other government efforts to attract FDI.10
And amazingly, the plan seems to be working. In 2022, net FDI inflows to Japan were very slightly greater as a proportion of the economy than in either China or South Korea:
And encouragingly, greenfield FDI seems to be powering this rise. The number of inbound M&A deals has held steady, while greenfield projects have soared:
And since the semiconductor industry is powering this rise, it’s likely that a significant amount of this will result in exports.
But although this is good progress, Japan could do a lot more on the FDI front. First of all, 1.1% of GDP per year is a big improvement, but it’s not really big enough to be transformational — Poland gets over 5%, France gets 3.8%, and the U.S. gets 1.5%.
Second, most of Japan’s greenfield FDI is in one single industry — semiconductors. If Japan could attract similar levels of investment in other sectors, it would be insured against a sudden downturn in the chip industry, and it would have the chance to build up its technological muscle along a wider front. There are plenty of other high-value industries where Japan could be a high-tech, low-cost production platform — aerospace, biopharma, batteries, and electronics being four obvious examples.
In other words, Kumamoto, Sakana AI, and the other examples above are an important proof of concept for a golden age of Japanese FDI, but they should be only the beginning.
Why do foreigners invest in Japan?
Traditionally, the reason a few foreigners wanted to invest in Japan — either through greenfield investments or M&A — was to tap the large and lucrative Japanese market. That motivation still remains to some extent, but it’s growing weaker every day. But there are a number of reasons Japan is increasingly attractive as an export platform. Understanding these reasons is absolutely crucial for Japanese government officials and businesspeople who want to attract more FDI — if you’re selling something, you must understand why your customers want to buy it.
The most obvious selling point is the weak yen. A cheap Japanese currency makes anything produced in Japan more competitive in world markets. On top of that, decades of stagnant real wages have a silver lining — they’ve made Japan’s skilled workforce look relatively cheap. A third strong point is Japan’s deep network of high-quality suppliers.
There’s also the national security angle. As China’s foreign policy has become more aggressive, the U.S. and other developed nations have begun to try to move them out of China. The U.S. government calls this “friendshoring”, while companies call it “de-risking”, but the principle is the same — no one wants to be caught dependent on Chinese manufacturers for critical high-tech products if a war breaks out.11 Japan is an obvious alternative production base — it’s smaller and more expensive than China, but infinitely more secure. And unlike China, Japan will not use espionage to steal foreign companies’ intellectual property.
Even Germany, which has traditionally been more willing than other Western countries to invest in China, is beginning to get nervous; a significant number of German companies are looking to switch to Japan. And the U.S. Department of Defense is planning to develop advanced weapons in Japan, as well as manufacturing more traditional munitions there.
Yet another advantage — which Japanese people may not fully appreciate, since they’ve never had to deal with the alternative — is Japan’s efficient government. In many Western countries, environmental review laws and other poorly crafted regulations have turned land use into a nightmare — projects that pass all relevant environmental and safety regulations still have to endure years of lawsuits and court-enforced paperwork, making it hellishly expensive and time-consuming to build factories. The U.S., the UK, and other anglophone countries, which rely on the courts to adjudicate environmental regulation, have become especially hostile to development.
Japan’s more sensible and efficient system, which relies more on bureaucrats than on the court system, preserves some role for community input, but allows construction projects to be approved in a timely manner. Japan’s willingness to build, meanwhile, has left it with plenty of high-quality infrastructure — and the ability to create more quickly to suit the needs of foreign investors if necessary.
But there’s one more huge reason that foreigners want to invest in Japan, which could ultimately be more important than all the rest combined. And it’s a factor that, in my experience, very few Japanese people — including the government officials tasked with promoting FDI — yet appreciate.
The key is that people around the world really love Japan, and want to live there.
Part III: Why everyone loves Japan
The world loves everything Japanese, but Japan doesn’t realize it
In 2015, my employers at Bloomberg Opinion sent me to Japan to learn about the state of the Japanese economy. They helped me arrange many interesting discussions. I talked to the Financial Services Agency about the new corporate governance code; to Goldman Sachs about women joining the workforce; to Foreign Ministry officials about trade treaties; to an economics professor about fiscal sustainability; and so on. But the interview that stuck in my mind for many years after was with a manager at Kodansha.
My goal for the meeting was to learn about Japan’s efforts to increase its cultural exports — something the Western press had been talking about for decades. So I was absolutely astonished when the Kodansha manager told me that his company had no strategy and no plans to increase their sales of manga and anime in overseas markets. Even more surprising was his explanation as to why. “Americans don’t want to see Asian faces,” he told me.
I stared at him in slack-jawed amazement. Nothing could be further from the truth, I told him. I didn’t have international statistics on hand, but I knew that Asian media was taking the U.S. by storm. Manga sections were steadily growing in American bookstores. K-pop was exploding in popularity. Cosplay conventions had become mainstream. Overseas anime sales were starting their long upward climb:
In 2015, these trends were already becoming apparent, but they’ve only accelerated. From the TV show Shogun sweeping the 2024 Emmy Awards, to the Korean film Parasite winning the Oscars in 2020, to Oscars for the Japanese movies Godzilla Minus One and The Boy and the Heron, to Korea’s BTS becoming the biggest band in the world, there has been no shortage of proof that “Asian faces” — or, more precisely, the products of Japanese and Korean imaginations — are exactly what the world wants to see.
But these examples can’t fully convey how Japanese pop culture, in particular, has become a memetic shorthand that young generations in America and many other countries use to communicate, to define themselves, and to understand the world.
When I moved to a new apartment last year, the movers stopped to talk to me about anime. When I went to hang out with some venture capitalists at their lavish San Francisco apartment, they asked me if I wanted to watch some anime. When I tutored children in math as a college student back in the 2000s, it was hard to get the kids to pay attention, because they were drawing anime characters in their notebooks. Anime tropes like “Notice me, senpai!” have crept into the American lexicon. When I go to my friends’ startup offices, there are manga volumes on the shelves. When I argue with strangers online, their avatars are faces from anime.
These aren’t just anecdotes. A survey of Americans by the website Polygon in early 2024 found that 42% of Gen Z watches anime every week, compared to just 25% who watch the NFL. Younger survey respondents reported that anime influences many basic aspects of their life — style, identity, friendship, and even attraction. (That’s just in the U.S., but as far as I know, this trend is worldwide — anime viewership is growing even faster in Europe, Brazil, and the Anglosphere.)
In fact, the increasing Japanese influence on American life goes far beyond pop culture. Over the past two decades, Japanese food has increasingly become the most sought-after cuisine. New Yorkers line up around the block to get into ramen restaurants that would be considered average in Japan. Wagyu has become a national obsession.12 Omakase has become a pinnacle of find dining, and words like kaiseki and izakaya are becoming part of the standard lexicon. Matcha has become a delicacy — expensive shops advertise “the finest matcha tea from the shade-grown farms of Kyoto, Japan”. Even non-Japanese restaurants sometimes affect Japanese names and pseudo-Japanese decor in order to seem higher class — allowing to charge a hefty price premium. It’s hard to find a high-end cafe or restaurant in San Francisco these days that doesn’t have something yuzu-flavored.
Nor is it just food. In the high-end home furnishing stores where rich Americans shop, Japanese-made ceramics and other objects command a hefty price premium. At the more affordable end, Daiso, Uniqlo, and Muji have become all the rage. Japanese artists like Kusama Yayoi have become such staples of high culture that the trend has been parodied in Netflix dramas. Fashionistas in trendy cafes will have B-side Label stickers on their laptops and bags.
As with food, even the veneer of Japanese fashion and design is enough to impart a sense of high class and good taste. Seeing boutiques with katakana on their signs on St. Mark’s Place in New York City, or Haight Street in San Francisco, is now commonplace, even if the goods inside aren’t from Japan.13 Trendy American brands will give themselves Japanese-inspired names like “Baggu”. I often joke that the U.S. is in the middle of a great shift — in the 19th and 20th centuries, high class in America was defined as “anything French”, while in the 21st century it’s defined as “anything Japanese”.
Japan’s international cachet can be seen in a variety of international surveys and rankings. In 2023, Japan topped the Anholt-Ipsos Nation Brands Index, which has measured international perceptions of various developed countries for 15 years:
Japan also regularly comes in at or near the top of a similar international survey by the BBC. Recently, Japan was ranked #2 on U.S. News and World Report’s list of the “best countries in the world”, which combines various subjective metrics to assess a country’s international appeal. And another survey by Conde Nast put Japan in the top spot.
In my experience, most Japanese people are generally unaware of any of this. Earth became a weeb planet in spite of the failure of the Japanese government’s attempts to promote Japanese culture overseas. It has been an organic, disorganized, bottom-up phenomenon — Japanese culture simply holds a special appeal to the people of the U.S. and much of the rest of the world.
The most important word about Japan that Japanese people don’t know
In fact, even more astonishing than my interview with Kodansha is the fact that to this day, I have not met a single Japanese person who has heard of the word “weeb”.
Explaining the meaning of the word “weeb” is actually a little tricky, since it comes from internet slang. It was originally a short form of “weeaboo” — a nonsense word invented on an old web forum, meaning a non-Japanese person who is obsessed with Japanese culture.
The dictionary definition of “weeb” still claims that it’s a derogatory term for people who are overly obsessed with Japan. But this hasn’t been the case for a while. Like the word “otaku” in Japanese or “nerd” in English, “weeb” started out as an insult but eventually became a semi-ironic badge of honor. And like those other slang words, “weeb” has come to be applied in a much looser, more casual sense.
There are still the classic, hardcore weebs — the people who flock to anime conventions and enter cosplay competitions and study Japanese just so they can play the untranslated versions of every Final Fantasy game. These enthusiasts form a vibrant and highly original subculture that has spread throughout the world.14 In another essay in this volume, I try to explain this subculture.
But like “otaku” and “nerd”, “weeb” is starting to take on a looser, more general meaning. Just as anyone these days might jokingly refer to themselves as an “hiking otaku” for enjoying hiking, or a “tea nerd” for knowing a lot about tea, people in the English-speaking world are starting to refer to themselves as “weebs” for liking Japan and Japanese products in general.
It is in that looser, more general sense that America — like an increasing number of other countries — has become a weeb nation. And it is in this more general sense that the worldwide weeb trend can help Japan reclaim its position as a global center of high-tech innovation.
Everyone wants to go to Japan, and they’re starting to realize they can
By now, everyone in Japan knows all about the tourism boom, but the numbers are still staggering. In 2007, 8.4 million tourists came to Japan. By 2019 that number had almost quadrupled, and is now rebounding sharply from the pandemic:
By Phoenix7777 - Own work Data source:国籍/月別 訪日外客数（2003年～2015年）[Monthly visitors to Japan by country]. Japan National Tourism Organization.Visitor Arrivals for Dec. 2015 (Preliminary figures by JNTO). Japan National Tourism Organization., CC BY-SA 4.0
The Japanese government intentionally encouraged tourism starting in the early 2000s, but the boom since 2012 has far exceeded their targets. So many people are visiting Japan that it’s straining local infrastructure, causing overcrowding, and prompting the locals to ask when the flood will recede. So far there’s no sign that foreigners are getting bored with Japan; tourism numbers in 2024 look set to top the record set in 2019, with increasing arrivals from the U.S. and Europe more than canceling out a drop in visitors from China. Personally speaking, almost everyone I know in San Francisco is either going to Japan these days, or wants to go. Some have started going multiple times a year.
Eventually, something will probably have to be done about overtourism. But the boom in foreign travel to Japan has accomplished several important things, all of which will be potentially useful in boosting investment into Japan.
First, it has familiarized much of the world with Japan — what was once a mysterious far-off land is now just one more place you can go and hang out when you get some vacation time. And instead of reducing Japan’s overseas cultural cachet through boredom and familiarity, the tourism boom seems to have only deepened foreigners’ love of Japanese food, art, and culture.
Second, tourism is forcing Japanese cities — especially Tokyo — to become more user-friendly to foreigners. Signs in English and other foreign languages have proliferated, shopkeepers and restauranteurs are all used to dealing with non-Japanese customers, and so on.
Third tourism is rapidly dispelling the previously common stereotype of Japan as a closed-off, xenophobic country. Foreigners can now see for themselves how open, free, friendly, and welcoming of a country Japan actually is. For most people, this revelation makes little difference in their lives. But for a few, it has prompted a second realization — that instead of just visiting, they could go live and work in Japan.
Mass immigration to Japan remains dominated by people from poorer Asian countries, especially Vietnam and the Philippines. But a 2020 survey by the global money transfer service Remitly found that Japan topped the rankings of countries that Americans and Canadians would like to move to. Anecdotes about Americans moving to Japan are starting to proliferate. The real estate news website Mansion Global reports that “[Japan’s] appeal is now leading to a slow-growing influx of American expats moving to the country in search of full-time residences or second homes abroad.” Personally, I’m always surprised by the number of people I meet in the San Francisco tech industry who talk about moving to Japan. A few have even done it.
Two extremely important examples of Westerners who made this move are the founders of Sakana AI. On Lux Capital’s website, they note that Llion Jones “fell in love with Japan after spending a holiday there and moved to Tokyo in 2020.” As for Jones’ cofounder David Ha, he has spent much of his career in Japan since graduating from college.
It’s not just Westerners either. A growing number of Taiwanese people want to work in Japan. It’s not clear whether a desire to live in Japan on the part of TSMC’s workers was a factor in that company’s decision to invest in Kumamoto, but it certainly couldn’t have hurt.
Which brings me to the final effect of the tourism boom: It’s helping Japanese people to finally realize just how much the world loves their country. Japan may not yet know the word “weeb”, but it’s becoming conscious of the phenomenon itself.
But knowing that the world loves Japan is far easier than understanding why this is the case. In fact, there are no simple or easy answers to this question. I can venture my best guess as to the reasons for Japan’s unique global appeal, but it means I’ll have to venture beyond the realm of data and research and into the realm of supposition and amateur sociological theorizing.
It starts, I think, with Japan’s unique approach to urbanism.
Why people love Japanese cities
One strategy that Japan has tried in order to curb overtourism is to get tourists to visit small towns and rural areas instead of Tokyo and Kyoto. This strategy has failed, because Japan’s big cities are exactly what foreigners come to the country to see. To be sure, Japan’s rivers and mountains are beautiful, its small towns are quaint, and its temples and shrines are majestic. But what really makes Japan different from every other country in the world are its big cities.
Unless they have lived abroad, Japanese people have little idea what life in an American city is like. Unless you live in the center of New York City, life is typically lived in a point-to-point fashion. You move back and forth between your house, your office, and “third spaces” like stores, restaurants, bars, clubs, and parks. Usually you take a car, but perhaps sometimes a bicycle. If you’re poor you take a bus. The entire space between these points might as well be empty to you — you see signs and buildings as you drive by, but you’re usually focused on reaching your destination. A city thus becomes a network of points, rather than a space to be occupied.
This type of life can be comfortable, but it leaves little room for serendipity. Accidental meetings between friends and acquaintances are rare, unless there’s a cafe or bar that both people frequent. Accidental discovery of interesting new restaurants and shops are even rarer — instead, people use websites, word of mouth, and advertisements. And of course, accidental meetings with strangers are rare (which can be good or bad, depending on how extroverted you are).
Walkability and density are two reasons why Americans who move to Japan tend to feel like they’ve stepped into another universe. The ability to go anywhere without the stress of driving or the task of finding parking allows them a sort of freedom that few of them have ever known — Japanese people might consider an eight-minute walk to a train station to be unacceptably long, but to an American, that might as well be next door. And on the way to their destination, they’ll see far more people and far more interesting places to eat and shop. Where back home their commutes focused only on the destination, now the journey is half the fun.
Of course, Japanese cities are far from the only dense, walkable cities in the world. They also stand out for being extremely clean, quiet, and safe, and having some of the world’s most punctual and convenient trains. And Japanese urban infrastructure is always in excellent condition, due to timely and effective maintenance. But even these advantages aren’t quite unique — Zurich, Singapore, Stockholm, and Seoul all share those advantages. Japan’s cities have something extra special in addition.
I believe that that something is commercial density. Tokyo has an order of magnitude more restaurants than New York or Paris, and the disparity in retail stores is probably similar. Small business is the lifeblood of Japanese cities — and, in many ways, of the Japanese middle class. This might be partly cultural, but at least some of it is the result of deliberate policy. Japanese zoning usually limits the size of stores in mixed-use areas, ensuring that small businesses dominate. The Large-Scale Retail Store Location Law also provides some protection. And Japan’s government provides lots of support for people who want to start small businesses, including a variety of subsidies. This support, along with a culture of craftsmanship, might be why Japan’s independent restaurants and stores tend to stand out in terms of both quality and originality.
Commercial density is especially astronomical in central downtown neighborhoods like Shibuya, Shinjuku, and Ginza. Here Japan takes advantage of another secret weapon: verticality. In most cities — New York City, London, Paris, and even other Asian megacities like Hong Kong — most shops and restaurants are at ground level, with apartments and offices on the higher floors. But Japan has a special innovation: zakkyo buildings, with restaurants and stores mixed in with offices for several floors.15 These buildings have two special features: 1) signs all the way up the side of the building, and 2) direct street access via elevators and stairs.
Zakkyo buildings do two special things for Japanese cities. They allow a huge amount of retail to be concentrated in a very small space, in hyper-dense eating and shopping districts like Shinjuku. And they allow people walking past the buildings to see and access those shops and restaurants very easily from the street. This makes walking through a Japanese downtown an even more magical, serendipitous experience than walking through a city like New York — there are just so many more places to explore. And it also allows more residential areas very close to the city center to be surprisingly quiet and livable, since so much foot traffic is drawn to the ultra-dense downtowns.16
Of course, Zakkyo buildings also give Japanese cities their characteristic aesthetic. Columns of colorful electric signs running up the sides of buildings might seem tacky or antiquated to some Japanese people, but to foreigners, they create a distinctive beauty — a forest of lights that feels at once both enticing and soothing. Japan’s electric cityscapes feel more like luminescent trees or clouds than like something artificial — utterly different from the garish lights of Las Vegas or the overwhelming harshness of Times Square. This may be one of those features of Japan that it takes a foreign perspective to appreciate.17
Essentially, Japanese cities represent adventure — every day you walk out of your door in Tokyo or Fukuoka or Nagoya, you know you’re likely to discover an amazing new place to eat, a cool new boutique, or a fun new bar. And in those beautiful settings, you’re likely to meet interesting new people — new friends, business partners, or even lovers.18 Yet that adventure is a safe and comfortable one — urban Japan offers few dangers, or even inconveniences.
There are not many cities in the world that offer that winning combination. Traditionally, this is the role that Paris has played in the global imagination. But as I explain in another essay in this volume, Tokyo — and other Japanese cities — may be taking its place.
But although Japan’s unique urbanism is a big part of why foreigners are drawn to the country, it can only be part of the explanation — especially because many of the people who love Japanese products, and Japanese pop culture, have never even visited the country. There must also be cultural factors at work.
Japan as alternative modernity
For me to try to articulate which specific features of Japanese culture make it so uniquely appealing to foreigners is probably a lost cause. For one thing, culture is too complex to describe in language — the descriptions almost always end up being both boring and ambiguous, and usually fall back on tired stereotypes. It’s also likely that different aspects of a nation’s culture appeal to different groups of people.19 And since neither government, business, or private citizens has deliberate control over a nation’s culture, the exercise would be useless.
Instead, I think it’s more useful to realize what Japanese culture represents to foreigners, in a more general sense. And what I think it represents is alternative modernity.
Politically and economically speaking, Japan is part of the West. It’s a democratic, capitalist, developed country, with a notion of human rights similar to what prevails in the U.S. or Europe. It trades extensively with the U.S. and the EU, and it has strong scientific and intellectual links with both. It is neither a repressive one-party state like China or Russia, nor a theocracy like Iran, nor an aristocracy like UAE.
And yet in a million small ways, Japan is culturally distinct from the U.S. or Europe — or from anywhere else. It has different mannerisms, different social customs, and different aesthetic sensibilities. People relate to their coworkers and their friends and their families in different ways. Japanese institutions — companies, schools, bureaucracies — all do things a bit differently than their peers elsewhere. Even tiny aspects of Japanese culture, like preferences for brand goods, or the way people read the manual when they buy a new camera, feel different in ways that are difficult to describe but easy to recognize.
This high density of tiny differences manifests in almost everything Japan produces. To a Japanese person, the word “anime” refers to any cartoon, but to the rest of the world, it represents a specifically Japanese style that’s instantly recognizable and completely unique. Japan’s global in art, design, architecture, and fashion stem partly from a culture of craftsmanship, but partly from the fact that Japanese people simply tend to create slightly different kinds of designs.
In other words, Japan is a place that is substantively similar to other rich, democratic, and free countries, but feels different. To people all over the world, it represents an alternative to the standard global version of modernity descended from West Europe. People who value the wealth and freedom of European-derived societies, but who feel oppressed or bored by European-derived cultures, find refuge and novelty in Japan and its products.
There is thus no single reason that the world has gone weeb. Instead, there are a myriad of small reasons. For those who want to boost FDI into Japan, I would say that understanding and cataloguing all of these reasons is much harder than simply taking advantage of their existence.
Part IV: Weebs to the rescue
Weeb entrepreneurs
So far, I’ve been a bit vague about how foreigners’ love of Japan can translate into more and better FDI. In fact, I think there are three basic channels by which this happens: entrepreneurs, workers, and finance.
First, consider entrepreneurship. Many analyses of Japan’s technological stagnation point out how Japanese people are less likely than Americans to start their own businesses. And yet the U.S. has a secret weapon here: immigrants. Azoulay et al. (2022) found that immigrants are almost twice as likely to start businesses as native-born Americans. A 2018 study by the National Foundation for American Policy found that among the top companies, the dominance of immigrant founders was even greater:
The research finds that 55%, or 50 of 91, of the country’s $1 billion startup companies had at least one immigrant founder…Nearly one-quarter (21 of 91) of the billion-dollar startup companies had a founder who first came to America as an international student…75 of the 91 companies, or 82%, had at least one immigrant helping the company grow and innovate by filling a key management or product development position.
And children of immigrants also tend to be highly entrepreneurial; almost half of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. In fact, just going down a list of America’s biggest companies reveals the outsized influence of immigration — Steve Jobs of Apple was the child of a Syrian immigrant, Nvidia’s Jensen Huang was born in Taiwan, Sergey Brin of Google came from the old Soviet Union as a child, Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX moved from South Africa, and so on. It’s not just the U.S., either — a similar dynamic is at play in the UK.
Why are immigrants so entrepreneurial? Selection obviously plays a role here — the kind of people who are willing to pick up and move to another country tend to be self-starters and risk-takers. Immigrants also tend to have higher skill levels, and some arrive with significant financial resources.
In addition, immigrants have less of an outside option than the native-born — it’s harder for an immigrant to get a safe, high-paying job at a large, established company, so it makes more sense to start a business. This effect has been evident in Japan’s past as well — ethnic Koreans started a number of big businesses in Japan, such as Softbank, Lotte, ABC-Mart, and GungHo.20
Why do so many entrepreneurs move to America? Although hard data is difficult to come by, the American Dream must surely figure prominently in their calculations. The U.S. has the reputation of a place that welcomes entrepreneurial newcomers, and where anyone can strike it rich if they work hard and take risks.
Japan is unlikely to gain a similar reputation anytime soon, but that’s OK. It simply needs its own unique dream for would-be entrepreneurs — a story they can tell themselves about what their successful future will look like if they move. The dream has to involve financial success, of course — that’s why funding and growth opportunities, as well as the overall business ecosystem, are so important.
But just as the American dream includes the proverbial big suburban house with a white picket fence, the Japanese dream can leverage lifestyle elements as well. Immigrant entrepreneurs of the younger generation can dream of an adventurous, exciting life in the world’s nicest cities, and of immersing themselves in a culture that they’ve admired since childhood. In other words, Japan can offer entrepreneurs the Weeb Dream.
So the first way that the global weeb trend can help Japan is by swelling the ranks of its entrepreneurial class. Of course, Silicon Valley isn’t going to just pick up and move to Shibuya wholesale, any more than it’s going to move to London or Bangalore. But even a few hotshot entrepreneurs trying to make it in Tokyo can have a big outsized effect. They can attract follow-on investment and create buzz, like Sakana AI is doing. They can transfer key technologies from top U.S. research labs. They can inspire their Japanese entrepreneur counterparts with positive energy and new ideas for business models and fundraising strategies, and put them in touch with foreign capital. And they can tap export markets that Japanese entrepreneurs might not have thought to enter.
And over time, the trickle might become a flood. A few weeb entrepreneurs today could help their friends follow in their footsteps, as well as inspiring whole generations of global weebs to consider Japan. This is essentially what happened with the Japanese tourism boom, which took over a decade to get off the ground, and which built slowly via word of mouth.
Weeb capital
High-growth companies need more than bold and brilliant founders. They also need lots and lots of financing — not just in the early stage, but later on, as they attempt to scale up. For years, observers have noted that Japan is especially weak at late-stage startup funding. A recent Nikkei analysis calls this the “second death valley”:
Young Japanese companies are struggling to continuously expand their revenues compared with their peers in the U.S. and Europe, partially owing to their significant lack of access to capital needed for growth, a Nikkei analysis shows…
[S]tartups in Japan face the "second death valley" as their growth comes to a halt for failure in post-listing fundraising…Behind the phenomenon is the shortage of investors who can take the risk of providing funds to unlisted companies, forcing Japanese startups to seek going public at an early stage.
Foreign funding can help. VCs, private equity firms, and even banks in the U.S. and other startup-friendly countries are more used to dishing out large amounts of money for late-stage startups. If they can be interested in Japan, they can not only supplement Japan’s domestic financiers, but also teach them how to manage the risks of large late-stage investments.
In fact, now may be the perfect moment. Venture capital used to be an extremely localized industry, where in-person meetings were essential to getting funded. But in recent years, especially since the pandemic, VCs have become more comfortable establishing branch offices and looking for opportunities outside of Silicon Valley and other traditional U.S. tech hubs. The San Francisco Bay Area’s share of VC deals fell below 20% in 2023. And they’re starting to diversify overseas, too. In the 2010s, much of this went to China, but that trend is in full reverse in the era of decoupling. Meanwhile, VC investment into India and the rest of Asia is still going strong.
And more global VCs are taking an interest in Japan, as Nikkei Asia reports:
Overseas venture capital funds are stepping up investment in Japanese startups, spending nearly 70% more on the year in the January-June period as geopolitical tensions make China a less attractive target…VC investment by overseas players totaled 22.5 billion yen ($152 million) in the first half, up 69%…The figure accounts for roughly 20% of total VC funding in Japan, including those by domestic investors…The increase by foreign players far outpaces the 4% rise for the total.
Bain Capital Ventures, an important late-stage VC firm, is looking to double its investments in the country. Vinod Khosla, one of the investors in Sakana AI, has predicted that Japan will become an AI hub. Nor is American capital the only player here — venture firms from Taiwan and South Korea are planning major expansions in Japan.
What draws capital to Japan? The country’s still-substantial domestic market is one factor, of course, as is its history of technological leadership. Japan’s government is also helping, often co-investing with foreign funds. But here is an interesting paragraph I noticed in Lux Capital’s announcement of its investment in Sakana AI:
We see Japan becoming a pivotal hub in a new global axis of AI, drawing exceptional regional and international talent to companies that are leaders in the most competitive fields. With world-class infrastructure, an enviable quality of life, and a high-skilled local workforce, we expect Sakana AI will be the vanguard of a wave of excellent AI startups. [Lux Capital partner] Grace [Isford] lived for part of her childhood in Japan as an expat, and we look forward to many more people taking advantage of Japan’s increasingly open immigration for top technical talent.
Here is a case of a venture capitalist with a personal connection to Japan making a bet on the country’s potential. As with entrepreneurs themselves, financiers can be drawn to Japan by their personal affinity for the country.
Investing in Japan, after all, gives VCs a reason to visit frequently, or even relocate. And where VCs themselves go, their dollars follow. The Weeb Dream can thus help Japan become a destination for the capital that its startup ecosystem currently struggles to find at home.
Weeb talent
For over a decade, Japan’s government has been trying to attract high-skilled immigrants to the country, as its own talent pool shrinks due to low birth rates. In 2012 it created a points system for skilled immigrants, and in 2017 it significantly reduced the requirements for permanent residency for those skilled workers. But during the 2010s it struggled to attract those workers in large numbers.
Why? Language is obviously a barrier, but this is true for a lot of other countries as well. An issue more unique to Japan is the traditional lifetime employment system is another barrier — young workers often have low salaries, since they expect to get steady raises over the course of their careers.
In contrast, a talented young employee in the U.S. can get paid several times the median income — an entry-level software engineer at Google gets paid around $204,000 (¥29,000,000) on average as of this writing, which is about five times as high as the median personal income in the U.S. An entry-level hardware engineer at Nvidia gets paid around $153,000 (¥21,750,000). Those are positions for new graduates, right out of college.
No matter how much young people would love to live in Japan, it’s difficult for Japanese companies using the traditional lifetime employment system to compete with those salaries, even taking the lower cost of living into account. A foreign worker is unlikely to take advantage of Japan’s traditional lifetime employment system, which means that attracting skilled foreigners requires paying workers higher salaries earlier in their careers.21
FDI can help. Japanese branches of foreign-owned companies will generally not use the lifetime employment system, and will therefore be able to offer higher salaries to young workers from overseas. For example, an entry-level software engineer at Google in Tokyo gets paid around $115,000 (¥16,350,000). That’s pretty competitive, considering Japan’s cheaper cost of living.
And when you add the Weeb Dream to the equation, it’s actually possible for Japan to compete for global talent. When I asked the team at Spellbrush why they opened a branch office in Tokyo, they told me that the only way they could hire the world’s best AI researchers without paying them sky-high salaries was to offer them a chance to work in Japan.
How Japan can get more weebs
Finally, we get to the key question: How can Japan actually leverage its international appeal — the Weeb Dream — to get more FDI, more exports, and more global talent? What more can the government and businesses do that they’re not already doing?
Here are just a few ideas.
Idea 1: A big push
Simply recognizing the fact that there is huge unsatisfied global demand for life in Japan is the key first step. It implies that the amount of resources that the government and businesses are currently applying toward attracting FDI and top talent could be increased substantially, and that this increase would pay off.
The model for a big FDI push should be the the tourism promotion effort that started in 2006 with the Tourism Nation Promotion Basic Law. This took almost a decade to start seeing significant results, so patience and consistency are important here. Once the trend is established, it’s likely to exceed expectations.
Japanese government agencies who want to promote FDI — JETRO, METI as a whole, the Cabinet Office, and various prefectural governments — should both step up and diversify their own efforts, exploring new ways to market Japan to the world. They should also actively partner with the private sector — Japanese VCs, with Japanese businesses that would like to form joint ventures, and with upstream Japanese industries that stand to benefit from FDI (like the semiconductor tool industry). Each of these types of businesses can find their own marketing channels, and they can offer standardized investment or joint venture packages for foreign investors — similarly to how Japanese airlines offer cheap tickets and standardized tour packages.
Japan should also enlist foreigners who have already invested in Japan. Ideas spread by word of mouth, and once a few prominent foreigners start giving their testimonials about how investing and living in Japan, many others will start to consider the idea. An example is software entrepreneur Patrick McKenzie, whose writings about life and business in Japan inspired others in the U.S. to think seriously about Japan as a destination.22
Right now, efforts to pitch Japan as an FDI destination tend to emphasize its business climate, human resources, and safety. Adding depictions of life in Japan to this basic pitch would help harness the power of the Weeb Dream. The best way to do this is probably to promote images and videos of foreigners working and living in Japan — as Americans say, a picture is worth a thousand words.23
Idea 2: A “Japan Life Pass” and a “Japan Investment Pass”
Tourism to Japan has been helped a great deal by the existence of various standardized package deals. These deals give foreigners a push-button solution for traveling to Japan, alleviating the need to plan flights, hotels, and sightseeing tours separately. And the Japan Rail Pass, introduced in 1981, has given tourists a push-button solution for getting around the country. The Japan Rail Pass is famous outside of Japan; its very existence serves as an advertisement for tourism to the country.
A similarly famous, standardized solution for moving to Japan could do something similar for FDI and foreign talent. For life in Japan has gotten a lot easier thanks to technology — especially Google Translate, Google Maps, and ChatGPT. But there are still some important things that can be difficult. These include:
Finding a place to live
Getting a phone plan
Opening a bank account
Ward registration
Tax preparation
The Japanese government can create a Japan Life Pass that helps with all of these things. The government could partner with private companies — real estate agents, phone companies, banks, tax prep services, and so on — to help foreigners with each of these processes as soon as they arrive.
Obviously a Japan Life Pass would not be made available to any and all foreigners. Instead, it would require some qualifications. For example, anyone whose company has made a major investment in greenfield FDI in Japan, or any investor with a definite plan to make a major greenfield FDI investment, should should be able to get the pass.
The Japan Life Pass should also offer special Japanese language classes, exclusively for holders of the pass. This will be helpful for improving the language skills of foreign entrepreneurs, investors and workers, but it will also be extremely useful for networking. The classes can also include local Japanese investors and entrepreneurs as guest speakers, facilitating further networking and business relationships.
There should also be a parallel Japan Investment Pass for foreign-invested startups and Japanese subsidiaries. This pass would provide package-deal access to various legal and accounting services that small, fast-growing businesses need — incorporation, worker visas, tax preparation, accounting, and various business development services like local recruiting. There are already private companies like Venture Japan that provide these packages; the government should simply give their services an official imprimatur.24 In fact, Shibuya ward in Tokyo does something like this, with its “Shibuya Startup Deck”.
The purpose of these “passes” isn’t just to make life easier for foreigners who want to invest in Japan. They will also serve as marketing. The name “Japan Life Pass” is catchy, easy to remember, and self-explanatory, and it’s similar to the well-known Japan Rail Pass. Simply hearing the name will immediately tell every potential foreign investor that the Japanese government intends to make it easy for foreigners to move to and invest in Japan.
Idea 3: Make bank accounts easy
When I ask foreigners who set up businesses in Japan about their most severe “pain points”, I always get the same answer: banking. Using Japan’s retail and commercial banking services was never particularly easy or simple for foreigners, but with the recent implementation of anti-money-laundering provisions, it has become even more onerous.
An investor, executive, or engineer who moves to the United States can typically set up a bank account within a single day; in Japan, getting a standard savings account now takes six months. In addition, Japanese banking requires a personal seal, which cannot be obtained before establishing residence in the country. This means that moving to Japan, investing there, and doing business there takes a long time and a lot of effort. It’s a significant barrier to FDI.
If the U.S. can effectively fight money laundering without these onerous requirements, Japan can too. Bank accounts should be quick to get, and it should be possible to get a personal seal from outside Japan. The Financial Services Agency and the Ministry of Finance should come up with a concrete action plan for making banking a rapid, push-button process for foreign investors and for the employees of companies who invest in Japan.
Idea 4: Weeb neighborhoods
Some immigrants like to immerse themselves in local culture, forcing themselves to sink or swim. Others like to move to an immigrant “enclave” city or neighborhood where they can be around other immigrants for some of the time. These enclaves facilitate networking, and can also serve as advertisements for life in a country — for example, Irvine, California became a popular destination for Asian immigrants.25
In fact, Japan is already starting to build enclaves like this. In Kumamoto, there are major efforts to build infrastructure for TSMC’s Taiwanese employees — not just trains and housing, but also an international school, a “Taiwan Town” filled with ethnic retail businesses, and so on. In Tokyo, Shibuya ward has gone out of its way to provide support for foreigners’ startups, with the aforementioned Shibuya Startup Deck, entrepreneurship classes, networking, and even a special visa for entrepreneurs. Even some small Japanese towns, like Tanegashima, are trying to become destinations for digital nomads.
Japan’s government can encourage the creation of these enclaves in at least two ways. First, the national government can partner with specific local governments to implement entrepreneurship support like Shibuya’s and capacity building like Kumamoto’s.
Second, the government can work with developers and real estate agencies, schools, and day care centers that serve foreigners, arranging for them to cluster in specific areas. Having a family with children can be especially challenging in a foreign country, and neighborhoods that feel very livable for high-earning immigrant families with kids can be magnets for talent.26 An example of such a neighborhood is Tamachi in Tokyo.
Sustaining the Weeb Dream
The ideas I laid out in the previous section are all designed to help foreign entrepreneurs, investors, and workers turn the Weeb Dream into reality. They all take the existence of that dream for granted. In fact, so far, Japan has not had to do anything in order to create and sustain the global weeb phenomenon; like the American Dream, it has been a completely organic, bottom-up phenomenon.
There is the danger that at some point, Japan will lose its distinctiveness and its international appeal. This is not an immediate danger, but the government should think about ways to preserve the aspects of Japan that make it special, so that the Weeb Dream never dies.
One way is to continue supporting small, independent retail businesses. The vast diversity of highly original shops and restaurants is what makes Japanese cities special, but sustaining that diversity might be difficult in an age of low fertility rates. Already, many independent boutiques in Tokyo’s famous fashion districts of Harajuku and Omotesando are being replaced by boring international chains like Gucci and Zara.
Meanwhile, as the authors of Emergent Tokyo document, big developers in Tokyo and other cities have recently favored indoor malls without the exterior signs and easy street access that make zakkyo buildings and yokocho so distinctive. People go to Japan to visit places like Omoide Yokocho, Yasukuni-dori, and Golden Gai, not places like Shibuya Hikarie, Tokyu Kabukicho Tower, or Azabudai Hills.
Japan’s government shouldn’t ban big malls, of course, but it should increase its support for the types of local businesses and shopping areas that have made it so distinctive. This means planning new yokocho-type areas like Ebisu Yokocho, and new zakkyo buildings, shotengai, and so on. It means continuing and even stepping up its support for independent retail businesses — including shops and restaurants started by foreigners.
Another threat to the Weeb Dream, ironically, is overtourism. Visiting Japan is a magical experience for many, but at a certain point it becomes so crowded with visitors that the magic is lost. My suggestion for balancing these imperatives is to have big cities like Tokyo and Kyoto enact a special surcharge on hotel and Airbnb reservations made to people outside the country. Visitors all need somewhere to stay, so this is just an easy, unobtrusive way of enacting a congestion tax for tourism. The surcharge will allow city governments to adjust tourism levels to their desired amounts, redirecting tourist dollars to rural areas and smaller cities while also reaping more tax revenue for the Tokyo and Kyoto city governments.
The Weeb Dream also relies on the continuing international appeal of Japan’s pop culture. Japan’s past efforts to promote its culture at the government level, especially the Cool Japan initiative, have been underwhelming. Instead, the key is to encourage independent Japanese auteurs in the manga, anime, film, TV, music, art, and fashion. It was the genius of independent creators like Miyazaki Hayao, Tezuka Osamu, and Anno Hideaki that made manga and anime so vibrant and unique.
If the era of those titans gives way to boring cookie-cutter corporate slop — as has unfortunately happened in Hollywood — it will erode Japan’s distinctiveness and appeal in the long term. Thus, Japan should encourage independent creators in every artistic field, including cheap or free studios, exhibition spaces, and so on. And IP law and regulatory policy should ensure that artists in all fields get a significant cut of the financial profit from their creations, including merchandising deals.
The Weeb Dream wasn’t inherited from the time of the samurai; it was created in the modern day, by the independent efforts of millions of highly creative independent Japanese businesspeople and artists. Maintaining that dream doesn’t require fancy overseas marketing efforts; it merely requires giving Japan’s creative people the space to work and thrive.
Semipermeable membranes: A theory of Japan
Some readers may find this essay to be self-contradictory. Even as I extolled the benefits of Japan’s uniqueness and distinctiveness, I advocated bringing in foreign businesses to boost its economy. How can these two things be reconciled?
In fact, I believe that this duality has always been Japan’s unique strength. Japan has always thrived from being a land of semipermeable membranes. Just as a cell’s membrane allows in some ions and molecules but keeps others out, Japan has always been at its best when it sampled selectively from the outside world.
During Tokugawa era, Japan’s isolation caused it to stagnate and fall behind the West. Its rapid catch-up in the Meiji Period involved importing vast amounts of foreign knowledge and taking ideas from many foreign institutions. Yet at the same time, Japan’s government and its businesses constantly tried to adapt these ideas and institutions to Japan’s existing culture instead of simply aping them.
Japan’s postwar economic miracle was similar. Research results and inventions from the U.S. and Europe inspired Japan’s own scientists and innovators, who then combined these ideas with their own, and added Japanese business models and design sensibilities, to make world-beating high-tech companies. Japan’s legendary manufacturing techniques were inspired partly by the work of Edward Deming and Peter Drucker, but added plenty of local innovations as well.
The art and cultural output that has made the world love Japan also springs from a combination of foreign and domestic ideas. The plots of Japanese sci-fi comics, games, and cartoons sample liberally from foreign works,27 but mix them into something distinctive and unique. Japan’s legendary street fashion took some inspiration from the U.S., Britain, and various European countries, ultimately surpassing all of these in creativity.
In other words, Japan’s greatness has always relied on taking some things from the outside world, but not too much. FDI will do the same. It won’t replace or overwhelm Japan’s domestic businesses; instead, it will provide them with just enough new ingredients to maintain their vitality.
I believe that this was the deliberate plan of the Meiji reformers who built modern Japan. Instead of self-defeating isolation or surrender to foreign invaders, they chose a third way — a country that mixes foreign ideas and technologies with local culture in appropriate measured amounts. The success of their strategy is more than apparent a century and a half later, in the world’s love for the distinctiveness and originality of the nation they created.
Now Japan is once again is stagnant and in need of fresh ideas. But it has an asset it didn’t have a hundred and fifty years ago — a world of weebs who stand ready to help.
Willem Thorbecke of RIETI believes that the crisis hurt Japan by causing the yen to appreciate. His theory is that it forced Japanese exporters to cut prices in order to maintain short-term market share, but that this deprived them of the earnings they needed to keep investing in research and development — ultimately leading to a loss of their technical edge to Chinese and Korean competitors.
In fact, monetary policy was far more important than fiscal policy under Abe. Concerns about government debt meant that it wasn’t really possible to deploy significant fiscal stimulus. In fact, what little “stimulus” did get employed under Abe was often in the form of bailouts for inefficient, failing companies, which might have reduced productivity growth by a modest amount. There are also arguments that monetary easing reduced productivity growth by allowing Japanese companies to borrow money too cheaply and avoid restructuring. While I think this is theoretically possible, I highly doubt that this was a big part of the productivity story in Japan; by the 2010s, Japanese companies in general had deleveraged, and therefore didn’t need to borrow cheaply in order to survive.
Actually, in Chapter 4 of The Contest for Japan’s Economic Future, Katz inadvertently ends up providing a bit of evidence in favor of Schaede’s argument. He shows that Japan’s global market share for niche manufactured products in 2018 was only 3% of total global manufacturing sales volume — about equivalent to China, only a little higher than Europe, and less than the United States. However, Japan’s population is less than a tenth of China, a third of Europe, or half of the United States. So Katz’ data supports Schaede’s conclusion that Japan punches above its weight in terms of niche manufacturing. At the same time, though, Katz’s data does show that niche manufacturing is too small to support an economy on its own. This reinforces the conclusion that multi-strategy development is needed.
This comparison may not be entirely fair. TSMC’s plant in Arizona is more advanced than either of the ones being built so far in Japan, meaning construction is trickier and more complex. And the delay at TSMC Arizona ended up being much smaller than initially feared, after a successful deal with U.S. unions and some construction assistance from Taiwan. Still, the smoothness of the construction in Kumamoto, whose timeliness was never in doubt, is impressive.
The typical categorization here is a little different than the one I’m using. Typically, FDI is classified as “horizontal”, “vertical”, or “conglomerate”. This breakdown is more useful when thinking about corporate strategy, while I think my breakdown is more useful for thinking about a nation’s development strategy.
This is similar to the “overcapacity” strategy that China has used in the 2020s, except that in addition to cheap bank loans, China also encourages production with huge government subsidies on top of cheap bank loans. MITI, in contrast, would try to tamp down over-competition and overproduction between Japanese companies when they deemed it excessive.
To be precise, increased demand for a country’s exports leads to an improvement in a country’s terms of trade, leading to an appreciation of the real exchange rate.
In keeping with Japan’s general weakness in information technology industries, I found that links on the Cabinet Office’s INVEST JAPAN website were broken, and the translation was sometimes clumsy. However, the JETRO website for FDI promotion worked well and looked rather nice. And JETRO’s advertisement in Bloomberg, promoting Japan as a destination for FDI, was gorgeous and well-articulated. Better cooperation between government agencies on projects like this would be a good idea. Japanese government agencies should hire some American web designers for their own websites. I can recommend some good ones, if anyone is interested.
In fact, it’s possible that one additional reason for Japan’s loss of international competitiveness after 2007 was that for national security reasons, Japanese companies invested less heavily in China than companies from South Korea, Taiwan, and Europe in the late 2000s and 2010s.
Rather humorously, my American friends insist on eating grade A5 wagyu, while not having any idea what that rating means. Americans simply trust that Japanese people know what the best meat is, and have rated it accordingly.
In 2015, I was walking on St. Mark’s Place in NYC, and there were so many Japanese-language signs around me that for a moment I became disoriented and thought I was in Japan.
In fact, the employees of Spellbrush, the AI startup, are in this category. Their office is covered in anime posters and figurines, and when I visited, they enthusiastically explained the details of the isekai genre to me.
A group of architecture weebs, including Jorge Almazan and Joe McReynolds, wrote an excellent book about Tokyo’s dense commercial spaces, entitled Emergent Tokyo: Designing the Spontaneous City. They cover zakkyo buildings in detail, including the history of the laws that led to their creation. They also mention other types of spaces such as yokocho and undertrack infill developments.
The ultimate example of this is probably Shibuya’s Shōtō, a neighborhood that feels isolated and suburban even though it’s just a few minutes’ walk from one of the most densely trafficked pedestrian areas on the planet.
In fact, I have a large photo of the zakkyo buildings on Shinjuku’s Yasukuni-dori hanging on the wall of my apartment. At some point I plan to replace it with one or more of my own photos, but I was in a hurry to decorate, and you can’t really go wrong with Yasukuni-dori.
One can argue that the boom in global interest in urban Japan began with the 2003 movie Lost in Translation, which depicts a romantic relationship between two Americans visiting Tokyo. Although relatively little of Japanese culture is depicted in the film, the visual backdrop of Tokyo lends an air of romance to the story that would be hard to capture elsewhere.
For example, unlike the hardcore weebs, I was never a very big anime fan — and certainly not a fan of the shonen and shojo anime that dominates weeb culture. Instead, I was always drawn to Japan’s underground scenes — street fashion, amateur art, independent film, and underground music.
Zainichi entrepreneurship in Japan has fallen in recent decades, as employment discrimination has diminished. The intergenerational assimilation of immigrant groups is why new immigration waves are so important for entrepreneurship.
Naturally, these salaries increase less over the course of a worker’s career than in Japan’s traditional lifetime employment system. Thus, some companies that use the traditional lifetime employment system can still remain competitive, since Japanese workers may choose to get paid more when they’re older. But for foreign workers who are unlikely to stay at a single company for decades, paying more up front is the only way.
In fact, McKenzie’s depiction of business in Japan is often filled with criticism and frustration towards Japan’s traditional lifetime employment system. Yet despite this criticism, his writings got a lot of American tech people to consider living in Japan, when they never would have even considered it before. This demonstrates that brand ambassadors for Japan need not always be “pro-Japan” in their writing style — it’s enough that they simply put the idea of moving to Japan into people’s minds.
An even more ambitious idea is to produce a reality TV show about foreign entrepreneurs in Japan. Americans love shows like Terrace House and Old Enough!, and streamers who talk about life in Japan are also quite popular. A Netflix series, or even a series of YouTube videos, depicting the life that awaits foreign workers and entrepreneurs in Japan could potentially be a big hit.
It’s important for the government to partner with a variety of different companies, instead of just one in each area. This will ensure competition, which will raise the quality of these services. Using only a single private-sector partner or provider will tend to result in low quality.
Immigrant enclaves can sometimes isolate immigrants and limit their opportunities. But thanks to Japan’s dense urbanism, enclaves in large cities like Tokyo are unlikely to isolate high-skilled immigrants from the populace at large.
In the U.S., these are typically called “bedroom communities”. A classic example is Fremont, California, home to many engineers and researchers who work around Silicon Valley. Its high schools are among the highest-achieving schools in the entire U.S.
In fact, Japan’s Seiun Award for best translated work is generally a better guide to high-quality American science fiction than U.S. awards like the Hugos or the Nebulas.
Planet, a company best known for providing geospatial intelligence through its constellation of imaging satellites, sees a significant opportunity in developing orbital data centers for artificial intelligence.
MILAN — The European Space Agency has confirmed a security breach of unclassified material from science servers following reports on social media. A threat actor claimed to have compromised ESA systems and to have leaked roughly 200 gigabytes of data. According to screenshots shared on X by French cybersecurity professional Seb Latom, the actor alleges […]
Lovely San Francisco, from which the billionaires will not be fleeing. (Photo by Jay Huang, CC BY 2.0)
The Cross Section is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
America’s billionaires — especially the tech billionaires whose wealth exceeds all others — are a sensitive and emotional bunch, their feelings easily hurt. And almost nothing makes them harrumph with more petulant indignation than the suggestion that they ought to pay more in taxes. They’re at it again, this time because of a proposed ballot measure in California that, if it gets on the ballot and passes, could impose a 5% wealth tax on billionaires in the state.
In what has become a familiar refrain, some of them are threatening to leave California for a state where they will not have to contribute so much to the public coffers. This is because extremely wealthy people are often incredibly irrational, even when it comes to financial matters, the thing they supposedly know so much about.
Knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing
The efficacy of wealth taxes compared to other ways of taxing the super-rich is a topic we’ll set aside for another day; for the moment, I want to focus on the predictable but utterly irrational freak-out happening among those who would be subject to such a tax. And it isn’t just in California; billionaires are making the same (mostly empty) threats in Seattle and New York as well. But the California measure is the big one, because the tax it would impose are higher and there are so many tech billionaires in the state. The initiative is being pushed by the Service Employees International Union; if it succeeds, 90% of the revenue will go toward health care and the remaining 10% to education. Naturally, the billionaires are up in arms:
Billionaires including Peter Thiel, the tech venture capitalist, and Larry Page, a co-founder of Google, are considering cutting or reducing their ties to California by the end of the year because of a proposed ballot measure that could tax the state’s wealthiest residents, according to five people familiar with their thinking.
Mr. Thiel, 58, who owns a home in the Hollywood Hills and operates a personal investment firm from Los Angeles, has explored opening an office for that firm, Thiel Capital, in another state and spending more time outside California, three of the people said.
Other billionaires who appear to be making moves to decrease their presence in California include Mr. Page, 52, a longtime resident of Palo Alto. He has discussed leaving the state by the end of the year, according to two people briefed on the talks. In mid-December, three limited liability companies associated with Mr. Page filed documents to incorporate in Florida, according to state records.
Let’s consider Larry Page, who is less of a public person than some of his peers. Page is currently worth $257 billion, making him the second-wealthiest person on Earth after Elon Musk. That means that as of today, 5% of Page’s wealth is a little under $13 billion.
Which is a lot of money — you could fund the salaries of a couple hundred thousand home health aides with just what this one guy would have to pay. But it’s not a lot of money to Larry Page. In fact, he regularly loses or gains that much money in a matter of days, and it has zero effect on anything he chooses to do or how he chooses to live.
That’s because the vast majority of his wealth, like that of almost all the super-rich, is held in stocks, which go up and down. An illustration: This April, Donald Trump unveiled a ludicrous set of tariffs on what he called “Liberation Day,” and over the next two days, the S&P 500 lost 10% of its value. But I didn’t see billionaires saying they were going to take all their money and put it in some other country’s stock market, let alone pick up and leave the place they live. They knew that things would probably turn around, and they did.
They certainly did for Larry Page. About half of his wealth is in shares of Alphabet, Google’s parent company. Just three years ago, his Alphabet holdings were worth one-third of the $122 billion those shares are worth today.
The point is, Larry Page and the other tech moguls gain and lose 5% of their wealth all the time because of the ups and downs of the stock market, sometimes in a single day. That’s just how the market works, and if there’s a bad week, Page doesn’t have to make any alterations in his lifestyle. He knows that over time, the market tends to go up, and if you are part-owner of a giant tech company like Alphabet, over time your wealth will probably go up a lot. Larry Page can reasonably predict that in five or ten years, depending on if and when the AI bubble pops and what happens afterward, he will be among the world’s first trillionaires. Thirteen billion dollars is nothing to him.
So why would the prospect of paying that 5% to the state of California (which might actually use it for something useful) rather than to the capricious gods of the market make him so mad that he would actually consider changing where he lives?
The internal exile of the super-rich
The answer is that Larry Page doesn’t live in California, not really. Nor does Peter Thiel, or Mark Zuckerberg, or any of the other tech moguls. Their physical bodies are in California much of the time, and their companies are headquartered there, but they live in a kind of self-imposed internal exile, a dimension apart from the one ordinary Californians inhabit. It’s a luxurious exile, full of floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking gorgeous views, scrumptious meals prepared by world-class chefs, and rich Corinthian leather into which to plant their behinds. But it’s completely removed from ordinary human society, which means their feelings about the community or the state where they live — even if it made them what they are — wind up disappearing.
It’s not like these guys are taking their families to see the latest Avatar movie at the theater in Palo Alto on a Friday night, then grabbing an ice cream cone and strolling down the main drag, enjoying a pleasant evening in their home town with their neighbors. They aren’t taking a book out from the local library, or visiting the local parks. They could do those things, but they don’t. And even if they “moved” to a different state, they’d still keep their houses in California, along with their private islands and whatever other properties they own. It would just be a matter of paperwork, and they have people for that. They live everywhere and nowhere.
There’s one more important thing to remember as they whine about the horror of paying a 5% wealth tax: All these tech moguls are exponentially richer than they would otherwise have been because of California, a state that incubated the tech industry, where they were able to take advantage of resources and an expansive community of innovators, entrepreneurs, and funders unavailable elsewhere. If Page and his Google co-founder Sergey Brin had met not at Stanford but at the University of North Dakota, would Grand Forks now be the headquarters of one of the most profitable and influential companies the world has ever seen? Almost certainly not.
Of course, these guys would all say, “California isn’t the same anymore! It’s choking us!” But that’s baloney. Silicon Valley and San Francisco are still the center of the tech world, because innovation still depends on having lots of people interested in the same things in the same place where they can develop ideas together. California is also beautiful and the weather is nice, so people will keep coming there, especially if they can solve the housing affordability problem.
Interestingly enough, Gov. Gavin Newsom is against this wealth tax; according to the New York Times, Newsom “is raising money for a committee to oppose the measure.” Newsom is a complicated politician, but an unerringly opportunistic one; we’ll have to see at what point in his inevitable run for president he realizes that opposing the increasingly unpopular tech industry has become a political necessity. He’ll probably find a way to do it that doesn’t involve proposing to raise taxes, the one thing rich people hate above all else.
But that’s in the future. For now, there’s no way to know if this measure will pass, but if it does, I can confidently predict that the tech oligarchs will survive having to pay higher taxes. A couple of them may say “That’s it, I’m moving to Miami!” but only a couple will even say so, let alone do it. The ones at the top may even realize that 95% of more money than anyone could spend in a hundred lifetimes is still plenty of money. But they won’t ever stop complaining.
Thank you for reading The Cross Section. This site has no paywall, so I depend on the generosity of readers to sustain the work I present here. If you find what you read valuable and would like it to continue, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Back in February I blogged about a neat Python library called sqlite-s3vfs for accessing SQLite databases hosted in an S3 bucket, released as MIT licensed open source by the UK government's Department for Business and Trade.
Since this is taxpayer-funded open source software I saw it as my moral duty to try and restore access! It turns out a full copy had been captured by the Software Heritage archive, so I was able to restore the repository from there. My copy is now archived at simonw/sqlite-s3vfs.
The process for retrieving an archive was non-obvious, so I've written up a TIL and also published a new Software Heritage Repository Retriever tool which takes advantage of the CORS-enabled APIs provided by Software Heritage. Here's the Claude Code transcript from building that.
In essence a language model changes you from a programmer who writes lines of code, to a programmer that manages the context the model has access to, prunes irrelevant things, adds useful material to context, and writes detailed specifications. If that doesn't sound fun to you, you won't enjoy it.
Think about it as if it is a junior developer that has read every textbook in the world but has 0 practical experience with your specific codebase, and is prone to forgetting anything but the most recent hour of things you've told it. What do you want to tell that intern to help them progress?
Eg you might put sticky notes on their desk to remind them of where your style guide lives, what the API documentation is for the APIs you use, some checklists of what is done and what is left to do, etc.
But the intern gets confused easily if it keeps accumulating sticky notes and there are now 100 sticky notes, so you have to periodically clear out irrelevant stickies and replace them with new stickies.
Will they change it to “The Trump Heritage Foundation”?
I have never, to put it mildly, been a fan of the Heritage Foundation. Ever since I started paying attention to Heritage’s work — which I started doing when I began writing for The New York Times, 26 years ago — the foundation has been a propaganda shop pretending to be a think tank, a producer of dishonest “research” purporting to justify a right-wing agenda of deregulation, dismantling the social safety net, and tax cuts for the rich. I wrote at length about Heritage’s deplorable record back in November.
Still, Heritage could have been worse. And sure enough, it has gotten worse in recent months, with Kevin Roberts, the foundation’s president — and the architect of Project 2025 — making it clear that he’s fine with white nationalist antisemites like Nick Fuentes.
And a funny thing has happened. It turns out that even at a fundamentally corrupt institution like Heritage there are lines you can’t cross. Suddenly, Heritage is experiencing a mass exodus of staff. In the latest wave of departures, more than a dozen staffers left to join an organization led by former Vice President Mike Pence. Heritage is, essentially, losing everyone who is even marginally competent or has any kind of reputation to protect.
My guess is that there have long been many people at Heritage who were privately disgusted at what the organization had become. I never said they were stupid. But they lacked the courage to leave until they saw their colleagues jumping ship. Then there was a mass rush for the exit.
Roberts may imagine that he and Heritage can ride out this storm, but I don’t believe they can.
Heritage has never been a source of credible research, but its role in the conservative movement has been to provide an intellectual gloss by producing what looked to the gullible — i.e., many people in the news media — like credible research. For example, back in 2002 David Broder, widely described as “the dean of the Washington press corps,” praised Heritage for its “intellectual honesty.” That was foolish even then, but I don’t think anyone would say that now.
But now that its illusion of credibility is gone, what is Heritage good for? It’s not as if MAGA wants to see any genuine policy research, or as if a hollowed-out Heritage would be capable of doing such research even if it tried.
Pence may imagine that his nonprofit, Advancing American Freedom, can take over the role that Heritage used to fill. If so, I believe that he’s wrong, at least as long as MAGA rules the American right. Donald Trump has no use for expertise, or even the illusion of expertise, and whoever comes next is unlikely to feel differently.
But MAGA’s rule may not last forever. Indeed, while I may be making too much of the demise of one organization, I see Heritage’s fall as a preview of how MAGA as a political movement will eventually implode.
For white Christian nationalism — which is now clearly MAGA’s essence — remains very much a minority position. Here are PRRI’s estimates for 2023:
Extremists have been able to gain so much power only thanks to support from ordinary conservatives. In the past it was largely about greed: people who wanted right-wing economic policies promoted Christian nationalists because they thought they could use them. Indeed, the creation of the Heritage Foundation and the creation of the Federalist Society — which stuffed the courts with ultra-religious judges, because secular conservatives had in the past turned moderate once on the bench — were part of the same power grab.
Today greed, while still part of the story, has increasingly been supplanted by fear: conservatives who aren’t Christian nationalists, who privately loathe much of what the Trump administration is doing, have become afraid to dissent.
What the debacle at Heritage suggests, however, is that many of these fellow-travelers have limits. As I said, there are lines even corrupt institutions can’t cross without provoking mass defections. And such defections, are, I believe, how MAGA will eventually be relegated to the dustbin of history.
What would a Heritage-style implosion of MAGA look like? It would involve large numbers of Republicans who secretly despise Trump and Trumpism going public and withdrawing their support.
I don’t know what form their defection would take. Would it involve a serious effort to wrest control of the G.O.P. back from extremists? Would it involve elected Republicans cooperating with Democrats? Would it mean leaving the G.O.P. altogether? America hasn’t seen a new major political party emerge since, well, the rise of the Republican Party in the 1850s, but this doesn’t mean it can never happen again.
All I can say is that it’s unwise to assume that non-MAGA Republicans will remain docile indefinitely in the face of ever more extreme corruption and bigotry at the top of their party. And their rebellion can’t come soon enough. For the time being, election victories by Democrats are our only hope of saving American democracy. But in the longer run, we need two decent, sane political parties.
So let’s hope that the Heritage implosion is an omen of the de-MAGAfication to come.
MUSICAL CODA
They would do anything for tax cuts, but they won’t do that
[...] The puzzle is still there. What’s gone is the labor. I never enjoyed hitting keys, writing minimal repro cases with little insight, digging through debug logs, or trying to decipher some obscure AWS IAM permission error. That work wasn’t the puzzle for me. It was just friction, laborious and frustrating. The thinking remains; the hitting of the keys and the frustrating is what’s been removed.
Last February I blogged about a neat script called sqlite-s3vfs which was released as MIT licensed open source by the UK government's Department for Business and Trade.
Claude suggested trying the Software Heritage archive and sure enough a search for https://github.com/uktrade/sqlite-s3vfs on their site resolved to this archived page, which appeared to have a full copy of the repo.
Downloading a snapshot of the most recent state was easy enough, but I wanted the full Git history. I stumbled across this Hacker News comment which helped me figure out the right way to do this.
Software Heritage have all sorts of different IDs. The ID that worked for me was something they call a "snapshot ID". I found this in their "Permalinks" sidebar under the "snapshot" tag:
It started swh:1:snp: - the ID for this repository was:
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/HEAD
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/branches/
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/config
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/description
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/hooks/
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/info/
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/info/exclude
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/info/refs
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/objects/
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/objects/info/
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/objects/info/packs
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/objects/pack/
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/objects/pack/pack-9946e5e52f40fd1df3352da074f9ac059e87ca9d.idx
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/objects/pack/pack-9946e5e52f40fd1df3352da074f9ac059e87ca9d.pack
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/refs/
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/refs/heads/
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/refs/heads/dependabot/
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/refs/heads/dependabot/github_actions/
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/refs/heads/dependabot/github_actions/dot-github/
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/refs/heads/dependabot/github_actions/dot-github/workflows/
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/refs/heads/dependabot/github_actions/dot-github/workflows/actions/
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/refs/heads/dependabot/github_actions/dot-github/workflows/actions/download-artifact-4.1.7
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/refs/heads/main
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/refs/pull/
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/refs/pull/11/
x swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git/refs/pull/11/head
...
That swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git is a bare Git repository. You can clone it into a usable working copy like this:
I had to use set-url because the original origin was that /tmp/swh:1:snp:1930ecd7bcc8c8666c721c4def3944c98d650abf.git local path.
Building an HTML tool to make this easier in the future
It turns out all of the relevant APIs are unauthenticated and support CORS headers, so I had Claude Code build me a page for automating part of this process in the future:
Up and to the office, whither Sir W. Pen came, the first time that he has come downstairs since his late great sickness of the gout. We with Mr. Coventry sat till noon, then I to the Changeward, to see what play was there, but I liked none of them, and so homeward, and calling in at Mr. Rawlinson’s, where he stopped me to dine with him and two East India officers of ships and Howell our turner. With the officers I had good discourse, particularly of the people at the Cape of Good Hope, of whom they of their own knowledge do tell me these one or two things: viz … [This would have been interesting. D.W.] [that when they come to age, the men do cut off one of the stones of each other, which they hold doth help them to get children the better and to grow fat. – L&M] that they never sleep lying, but always sitting upon the ground, that their speech is not so articulate as ours, but yet [they] understand one another well, that they paint themselves all over with the grease the Dutch sell them (who have a fort there) and soot. After dinner drinking five or six glasses of wine, which liberty I now take till I begin my oath again, I went home and took my wife into coach, and carried her to Westminster; there visited Mrs. Ferrer, and staid talking with her a good while, there being a little, proud, ugly, talking lady there, that was much crying up the Queen-Mother’s Court at Somerset House above our own Queen’s; there being before no allowance of laughing and the mirth that is at the other’s; and indeed it is observed that the greatest Court now-a-days is there. Thence to White Hall, where I carried my wife to see the Queen in her presence-chamber; and the maydes of honour and the young Duke of Monmouth playing at cards.
Some of them, and but a few, were very pretty; though all well dressed in velvet gowns. Thence to my Lord’s lodgings, where Mrs. Sarah did make us my Lord’s bed, and Mr. Creed I being sent for, sat playing at cards till it was late, and so good night, and with great pleasure to bed.
Here are some graphs on outstanding mortgages by interest rate, the average mortgage interest rate, borrowers’ credit scores and current loan-to-value (LTV) from the FHFA’s National Mortgage Database through Q3 2025 (released this morning).
... This shows the surge in the percent of loans under 3% starting in early 2020 as mortgage rates declined sharply during the pandemic.
Note that a fairly large percentage of mortgage loans were under 4% prior to the pandemic!
The percent of outstanding loans under 4% peaked in Q1 2022 at 65.1% (now at 51.5%), and the percent under 5% peaked at 85.6% (now at 68.6%). These low existing mortgage rates make it difficult for homeowners to sell their homes and buy a new home since their monthly payments would increase sharply.
This was a key reason existing home inventory levels were so low. However, time is eroding this lock-in effect.
In their consideration of monetary policy at this meeting, participants noted that inflation had moved up since earlier in the year and remained somewhat elevated. Participants further noted that available indicators suggested that economic activity had been expanding at a moderate pace. They observed that job gains had slowed this year and that the unemployment rate had edged up through September. Participants assessed that more recent indicators were consistent with these developments. In addition, they judged that downside risks to employment had risen in recent months.
Against this backdrop, most participants supported lowering the target range for the federal funds rate at this meeting, while some preferred to keep the target range unchanged. A few of those who supported lowering the policy rate at this meeting indicated that the decision was finely balanced or that they could have supported keeping the target range unchanged. Those who favored lowering the target range for the federal funds rate generally judged that such a decision was appropriate because downside risks to employment had increased in recent months and upside risks to inflation had diminished since earlier in 2025 or were little changed. Some of these participants emphasized that lowering the target range for the federal funds rate at this meeting was in line with a forward-looking approach to the pursuit of the Committee's dual-mandate objectives. These participants noted that reducing the policy rate at this meeting would be consistent with the projected decline in inflation over coming quarters while contributing to a strengthening of economic activity in 2026 that would help stabilize labor market conditions after this year's cooling. Those who preferred to keep the target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at this meeting expressed concern that progress toward the Committee's 2 percent inflation objective had stalled in 2025 or indicated that they needed to have more confidence that inflation was being brought down sustainably to the Committee's objective. These participants also noted that longer-term inflation expectations could rise should inflation not return to 2 percent in a timely manner. Some participants who favored or could have supported keeping the target range unchanged suggested that the arrival of a considerable amount of labor market and inflation data over the coming intermeeting period would be helpful in making judgments on whether a rate reduction was warranted. A few participants judged that lowering the federal funds rate target range at this meeting was not justified because data received over the intermeeting period did not suggest any significant further weakening in the labor market. One participant agreed with the need to move toward a more neutral monetary policy stance but preferred lowering the target range by 1/2 percentage point at this meeting.
In considering the outlook for monetary policy, participants expressed a range of views about the restrictiveness of the Committee's policy stance. Most participants judged that further downward adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate would likely be appropriate if inflation declined over time as expected. With respect to the extent and timing of additional adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, some participants suggested that, under their economic outlooks, it would likely be appropriate to keep the target range unchanged for some time after a lowering of the range at this meeting. A few participants observed that such an approach would allow policymakers to assess the lagged effects on the labor market and economic activity of the Committee's recent moves toward a more neutral policy stance while also giving policymakers time to acquire more confidence about inflation returning to 2 percent. All participants agreed that monetary policy was not on a preset course and would be informed by a wide range of incoming data, the evolving economic outlook, and the balance of risks.
In discussing risk-management considerations that could bear on the outlook for monetary policy, participants generally judged that upside risks to inflation remained elevated and that downside risks to employment were elevated and had increased since the middle of 2025. Most participants noted that a move toward a more neutral policy stance would help forestall the possibility of a major deterioration in labor market conditions. Many of these participants also judged that the available evidence pointed to a reduced probability that tariffs would lead to persistent inflation pressures. These participants observed that it was appropriate for the Committee to ease its policy stance in response to downside risks to employment, thereby helping to bring the risks to achieving the dual-mandate goals into better balance, and suggested that a move toward a more neutral policy stance at this meeting would leave policymakers well positioned to determine the extent and timing of additional adjustments to the policy rate, with these judgments being based on the incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks. By contrast, several participants pointed to the risk of higher inflation becoming entrenched and suggested that lowering the policy rate further in the context of elevated inflation readings could be misinterpreted as implying diminished policymaker commitment to the 2 percent inflation objective. Participants judged that a careful balancing of risks was required and agreed on the importance of well-anchored longer-term inflation expectations in achieving the Committee's dual-mandate objectives. emphasis added
So a few minutes ago I was scanning through my Facebook memories, and the act took me back in time to a video depicting a warm and glowy and happy and collaborative moment when this happened inside the White House …
If you’re unfamiliar, the date was May 31, 2012, and President Barack Obama invited George W. Bush and Laura Bush to Washington for the official hanging of their portraits. The room was packed. The mood was light. Joe Biden attended, as did many of Bush’s old cabinet members. Food was served, laughs were shared. W’s speech was hilarious and uplifting and, truly, beautiful. It was the splendor of democracy on display—combatants turned pals, opponents turned friends, unity overcoming diviseness.
And, to be honest, I’ve long loved this sorta thing. I remember when W’s father was president, and he hosted his four living predecessors. It was well known that Jimmy Carter disliked Ronald Reagan, and that Ronald Reagan disliked Gerald Ford, and that Richard Nixon was sort of an albatross for the whole gang. But it didn’t matter. This is what you did, not merely to be polite, but to show America that, come day’s end, we are all of one ilk. We are all the United States.
George H. Bush with ol’ pals Reagan, Carter, Fold and Nixon.
Alas, nowadays this all makes me more happy than sad, because—under Donald Trump—yet another important tradition has died. In his five years as president, Trump has never (literally not once) invited a predecessor to the White House. Why? This is a guess, but I suspect it has to do with the fragility of his ego mixed with the softness of his spine. Put different: He is a pimply-penised man who cannot allow anyone else to taste the spotlight, and who is only comfortable bashing and ridiculing folks from a safe distance.
I actually thought about this today, and when—in 2028—a Democrat retakes the White House, I hope he/she/they have the wherewithal to invite Donald Trump back. Give him his portrait. Sprinkle a few kind words.
Is he worthy of such a moment? Of course not.
But democracy is.
PS: I read over your collective criticism of this post, and am going to think deep, do better research, then follow up next week. I feel like, in hindsight, it wasn’t my most educated post—and I should do better. My bad.
Then, however, I began reading a New York Times article headlined, NEW YEAR’S EVE CONCERTS AT KENNEDY CENTER ARE CANCELLED. And deep in the text, following one big name after another big name, came mention of Lee, a folk singer from Alabama who pulled out of a free concert at the center.
She explained her reasoning in an Instagram post, which I’m pasting right here …
And—yeah!
No, fuck yeah!
No, fuckity fuck yeah!
A jarring number of yellow bellies have opted to surrender their spines (as well as a commitment to democracy) and kneel before the orange douche and his band of sinister dickwads. From Apple’s Tim Cook to Amazon’s Jeff Bezos to people like Marco Rubio and Doug Bergum, cowardice is trendier than ever, and it’s far easier to placate the bullies than stand up to them.
By almost any measure, Kristy Lee’s life would have been better served by appearing at the Kennedy Center, playing her guitar, singing her songs, making a few bucks and spreading her music.
But, no.
No, no, no.
Something inside of her decided she just couldn’t do it. That the benefits weren’t worth the decaying of honor and dignity. That standing on a stage that Donald Trump has bloodied, inside a building he has desecrated, wasn’t for her.
Bravo.
And it serves as a reminder (to me, to you, to them) that we must fight back. If a folk singer trying to make it in the music business can muster up the wherewithal to maintain her convictions, what excuse do we have not to?
PS: I ordered a T-shirt from Lee’s shop tonight. She actually has cool merch, and it feels like a great way to support her.
In an appearance on New York’s WABC radio on Friday, President Donald J. Trump told billionaire businessman John Catsimatidis and co-host Rita Cosby: “We just knocked out—I don’t know if you read or you saw—they have a big plant or big facility where they send the, you know, where the ships come from. Two nights ago, we knocked that out. So we hit them very hard.”
Officials said Trump was referring to a drug facility in Venezuela. But as Tyler Pager and Julian E. Barnes of the New York Times reported, the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had no comment, and military officials said they had no information to share. Pager and Barnes added: “U.S. officials declined to specify anything about the site the president said was hit, where it was located, how the attack was carried out or what role the facility played in drug trafficking. There has been no public report of an attack from the Venezuelan government or any other authorities in the region.”
The reporters also noted that Venezuela is not a major producer of narcotics. It primarily traffics cocaine from Colombia. Meanwhile, Max Bearak, Simón Posada, and Christiaan Triebert of the New York Times reported today that in the wreckage left behind by one of the U.S. strikes on what the administration calls “narco-terrorists” were bodies, charred fuel containers, life jackets, and packets, most of which were empty, although a few had “traces of a substance that looked and smelled like marijuana.”
At Mar-a-Lago today, Trump said: “There was a major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs. They load up the boats with drugs. So we hit all the boats and now we hit the area, it’s the implementation area. That’s where they implement. And that is no longer around.” Trump declined to say who was responsible for the operation. “I know exactly who it was, but I don’t want to say who it was,” he said. “But you know it was along the shore.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who usually posts video of military strikes on social media, posted nothing about the strike Trump mentioned, although at 4:01 this afternoon, U.S. Southern Command posted that it had struck another small boat in the eastern Pacific, killing another two men. The new strike means that the U.S. military has killed more than 100 individuals in an operation widely condemned as illegal.
Tonight, Natasha Bertrand, Zachary Cohen, and Jim Sciutto of CNN reported that earlier this month, the CIA struck a remote Venezuelan port facility with drones, the first known U.S. attack on targets inside Venezuela. The U.S. says the Tren de Aragua gang was using the dock to store drugs and then to move them onto boats for reshipment. No one was at the facility when it was hit.
Sources told the CNN journalists that U.S. Special Operations Forces provided intelligence for the operation, but a spokesperson for U.S. Special Operations Command denied that allegation. The CIA declined to comment.
Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo commented: “It’s a good commentary on 2025 that the US President announces a major military attack on a foreign country and even the straightest arrows think, 50% chance it’s an attack, 50% chance president is on another cognition bender.”
Saturday morning, the day before Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky was scheduled to meet with Trump for talks on ending Russia’s war against Ukraine, Russia launched a massive attack on Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv. The missile and drone strikes damaged more than ten residential buildings, killed at least one person who burned to death, and wounded 27 more, including two children.
When Zelensky arrived in Miami for his trip to Mar-a-Lago, there were no U.S. officials on hand to greet the plane. This was a deliberate snub, especially when compared to the literal red carpet Trump had U.S. military personnel roll out for Putin when he arrived on U.S. soil in August, followed by Trump greeting him while clapping, a military flyover, and a ride with Trump in the presidential limousine.
Trump’s preference for Putin was evident yesterday, too, when he posted on social media: “I just had a good and very productive telephone call with President Putin of Russia prior to my meeting, at 1:00 P.M. today, with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine.” He later told reporters that he and Putin talked for more than two hours.
At the meeting itself, Trump later told reporters, the negotiating teams “covered—somebody would say 95 percent, I don’t know what percent—but we have made a lot of progress on ending that war.” He once again referred to his fictional claims of being a peacemaker, adding: “I’ve settled eight wars, and this is the most difficult one.”
But, as Luke Harding of The Guardian noted, there is no sign that Putin is backing off from his extreme demands, including that Ukraine must give Russia much of its eastern territory. Trump’s negotiators suggest that such a concession would satisfy Putin, but skeptics doubt it. As White House chief of staff Susie Wiles told Chris Whipple in August in an interview for Vanity Fair, “The experts think that if he could get the rest of Donetsk, then he would be happy.” But, she said: “Donald Trump thinks he wants the whole country.”
Russia’s second invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has lasted almost four years and, as Russian troops have routinely attacked civilian areas and civilian infrastructure, the damage to the country has been extreme. After meeting with Zelensky, Trump answered a reporter who asked whether Trump had spoken to Putin about the reconstruction of Ukraine: “I did. I did. They’re going to be helping. Russia’s going to be helping. Russia wants to see Ukraine succeed. Once—it sounds a little strange but I was explaining to the president, President Putin was very generous in his feeling toward Ukraine succeeding, including supplying energy, electricity, and other things at very low prices. So a lot of good things came out of that call today.”
Quite literally, Russia invaded Ukraine and continues to smash it. As former Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) posted on social media: “With all this talk of how to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, and a cease fire, keep this in mind: If Ukraine ceases firing, Ukraine will cease to exist. If Russia ceases firing, the war will cease to exist.”
In his comments to reporters, one passage perhaps shed more light on events than Trump intended. Defending the idea that Putin, who is bombing Ukraine in an unprovoked assault, wants peace, Trump said: “I saw a very interesting President Putin today. I mean, he—he wants to see it happen, he wants to see it. He told me, very strongly. I believe him. Don’t forget, we went through the Russia Russia Russia hoax together. And he’d call me, I’d call him, I’d say, ‘Can you believe the stuff that they’re making up?’ And it turned out we were right. They made it all up, and despite that, we didn’t get into wars, or we didn’t get into problems, but we weren’t able to trade very much or any of that, which was a shame, because, you know, a lot of success could have been had by trading with Russia. They have great land, great minerals and other things, and we have things that they want very badly, but the Russia Russia Russia hoax, which was a terrible made-up fictional thing by crooked Hillary and by Adam Shifty Schiff and bad people, sick people. They made it up. It was all a made up hoax.”
But, of course, the idea that Russian operatives worked to put Trump into the White House in 2016 wasn’t a hoax.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by a Republican, unanimously concluded that “the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence…the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.” Further, Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort’s close relationship with “Russia-aligned oligarchs in Ukraine” meant that his “proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign. Taken as a whole, Manafort’s high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services…represented a grave counterintelligence threat.”
In 2016, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would not consider lifting the sanctions placed on Russia after its 2014 invasion of Ukraine’s Crimea. Although Republicans at the time supported those sanctions, it was not clear that Trump was as firm. Lifting sanctions was part of the story of Russian support for Trump in 2016.
The Senate committee and Special Counsel Robert Mueller put more of the story together, explaining that in summer 2016, Manafort and Russian operatives “discussed a plan to resolve the ongoing political problems in Ukraine by creating an autonomous republic in its more industrialized eastern region of Donbas, and having [Russian-backed Viktor] Yanukovych, the Ukrainian President ousted in 2014, elected to head that republic.” The Mueller Report continued: “That plan, Manafort later acknowledged, constituted a ‘backdoor’ means for Russia to control eastern Ukraine.”
“All that is required to start the process is a very minor ‘wink’ (or slight push) from D[onald] T[rump] saying ‘he wants peace in Ukraine and Donbass back in Ukraine’ and a decision to be a ‘special representative’ and manage this process,” wrote a Russian operative. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the men continued to work on what they called the “Mariupol Plan” at least until 2018.
Trump has continued to pressure Zelensky into accepting that plan, so far without success. But Trump’s statement to reporters also suggests that with Russia’s economy crumpling under the weight of four years of war, Putin is desperate to grab Ukraine’s industrial regions and get rid of the sanctions under which his country has staggered since 2014 and especially since his second invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In late November, Russia began to sell its gold reserves in order to fund its budget.
Trump told reporters he had had another “very good talk” with Putin this morning, after his Sunday meeting with Zelensky.
Whether because of Trump’s or Putin’s weakening position—or both—both Trump and Putin appear to be eager to close the deal.
Resale housing inventory has climbed toward or above pre-pandemic levels in most of the South and West. Even in the supply-constrained Northeast and Midwest, there are signs of inventory growth. By 2027 — the year in which the oldest members of Gen Z start turning 30 — the US will probably have more existing homes for sale than it’s had in a decade.
This normalization is putting gradual but persistent pressure on prices. At a metro level, price growth is either decelerating or prices are outright falling just about everywhere. A surge in delistings heading into year-end indicates that market dynamics are weaker than advertised home prices suggest. The S&P Cotality Case-Shiller US National Home Price Index rose just 1.3% in September from a year ago, well below the 3.7% growth in the average hourly earnings of American workers.
Here is more from Bloomberg. Conor has further analysis and suggests the 2030s will be quite a good house-buying time for Generation Z.
S&P/Case-Shiller released the monthly Home Price Indices for October ("October" is a 3-month average of August, September and October closing prices). August closing prices include some contracts signed in June, so there is a significant lag to this data. Here is a graph of the month-over-month (MoM) change in the Case-Shiller National Index Seasonally Adjusted (SA).
The National index increased 0.37% month-over-month (MoM). This is the 3rd consecutive month with a MoM increase seasonally adjusted that followed 5 consecutive months with a MoM decline.
• The S&P Cotality Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price NSA Index posted a 1.4% annual gain
for October, up from a 1.3% rise in the previous month.
• Regional divergence persists as Midwestern and Northeastern markets, led by Chicago (5.8%)
and New York (5.0%), outpaced Sun Belt cities like Tampa (–4.2%) and Phoenix (–1.5%).
• Sixteen of 20 markets declined month-over-month in October, signaling broad stagnation as
high mortgage rates weigh on affordability and suppress price momentum.
...
“October’s data show the housing market settling into a much slower gear, with the National Composite
Index up only about 1.4% year over year – among the weakest performances since mid-2023,” said
Nicholas Godec, CFA, CAIA, CIPM, Head of Fixed Income Tradables & Commodities at S&P Dow
Jones Indices. “This figure is essentially unchanged from September’s 1.3% annual gain and
represents less than a third of the 5.1% average home price increase recorded in 2024. National home
prices also continue to lag consumer inflation, as October’s CPI is estimated around 3.1% (based on a
provisional index the U.S. Treasury announced due to the federal data shutdown) – roughly 1.8
percentage points higher than the latest housing appreciation. In real terms, that gap implies a slight
decline in inflation-adjusted home values over the past year.
“Regional performance underscores a striking geographic rotation. Chicago now leads all major
markets with a 5.8% annual price gain, followed by New York at 5.0% and Cleveland at 4.1%. These
traditionally stable Midwestern and Northeastern metros have sustained solid growth even as broader
conditions soften. By contrast, Tampa home prices are down 4.2% year over year – the steepest drop
among the 20 cities, marking Tampa’s 12th consecutive month of annual declines. Other former high-
flyers in the Sun Belt are similarly struggling: Phoenix (-1.5%), Dallas (-1.5%), and Miami (-1.1%) all
remain in negative territory. It’s a stark reversal from the pandemic boom, as the markets that were
once ‘pandemic darlings’ are now seeing the sharpest corrections while more traditional metros
continue to post modest gains.
...
The S&P Cotality Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price NSA Index, covering all nine U.S. census
divisions, reported a 1.4% annual gain for October, up from a 1.3% rise in the previous month. The 10-
City Composite showed an annual increase of 1.9%, down from a 2.0% increase in the previous month.
The 20-City Composite posted a year-over-year increase of 1.3%, down from a 1.4% increase in the
previous month.
...
The pre-seasonally adjusted U.S. National, 10-City Composite, and 20-City Composite Indices
continued to report negative month-over-month changes in October, posting a -0.3% drop for the 20-
City Composite Index and -0.2% decreases for both the 10-City Composite and U.S. National Indices.
After seasonal adjustment, the U.S. National Index reported a monthly increase of 0.4% and both the
10-City Composite and 20-City Composite Indices posted month-over-month gains of 0.3%.
emphasis added
Click on graph for larger image.
The first graph shows the nominal seasonally adjusted Composite 10, Composite 20 and National indices (the Composite 20 was started in January 2000).
The Composite 10 index was up 0.3% in October (SA). The Composite 20 index was up 0.3% (SA) in October.
The National index was up 0.4% (SA) in October.
The second graph shows the year-over-year change in all three indices.
The Composite 10 NSA was up 1.9% year-over-year. The Composite 20 NSA was up 1.3% year-over-year.
The National index NSA was up 1.4% year-over-year.
Annual price changes were close to expectations. I'll have more later.
"China is set to impose a value-added tax (VAT) on condoms and other contraceptives for the first time in three decades, as the country tries to boost its birthrate and modernise its tax laws.
"From 1 January, condoms and contraceptives will be subject to a 13% VAT rate – a tax from which the goods have been exempt since China introduced nationwide VAT in 1993. ... After imposing a strict one-child policy for more than 30 years, China has over the past decade been introducing a suite of “carrots” to induce people to have more children in a bid to boost the falling birthrate.
As well as raising the limit on the number of children permitted per couple to three, provinces have been experimenting with offering discounts on IVF treatment and cash subsidies for extra children. Some local governments offer newlyweds extra days of paid leave to encourage people to tie the knot.
But the fact that condoms and contraceptives look set to become more expensive has been met with ridicule on social media. “What is wrong with modern society? They are truly going to extreme lengths just to make us have children,” wrote one user on Weibo.
...
"This year, the government also allocated 90bn yuan ($12.7bn) for its first nationwide childcare subsidy programme, offering 3,600 yuan annually for each child aged under three. And on Saturday it announced plans to expand its national healthcare insurance programme to cover all childbirth related expenses.
"But incentives have had little effect. In 2024, the birthrate was 6.77 per 1,000 people, a slight increase on 2023, but still far below historical levels. A rising death rate caused by an ageing population means China’s population has been shrinking for at least three years.
"Now there are concerns authorities may be turning to “sticks” to achieve the national policy goal of more babies.
Women in some areas have reported receiving phone calls from local government officers asking about their menstrual cycles and childbearing plans. In December, Chinese media reported that women in a county in south-west China’s Yunnan province were being required to report the date of their last period to the local authorities."
Turn articles into podcasts and listen on the go. Email any article, and it comes back as natural narration delivered straight to your private podcast feed. Whether it’s a long read or a quick blog post, enjoy it hands-free in any podcast app.
Sign up for free and start listening today. New users get $2 in credits to try it out, no commitment.
Now with many new voices, improved audio quality, and big bonus credits for frequent listeners.
Slashdot: I just wanted to confirm that that’s your work... If it
is your work, can you say anything about what software you used
when creating the image?
Thomson: I’m unable to comment on specific client projects. In
general, I always draw and paint by hand and sometimes incorporate
standard digital tools.
That is a non-denial denial that he used generative AI to create the image.
The artist, Keith Thomson, responded to my request for a comment,
stating that they “always draw by hand and sometimes incorporate
standard digital tools.”
That is the same non-denial denial, because “standard digital tools” might include generative AI.
MG Siegler wonders if it’s a deliberate allegory to some of the themes from the show, writing:
Keith Thomson using AI to produce art that’s like Keith Thomson’s
art because it’s trained on Keith Thomson’s art. How’s that for a
mindfuck?
MG’s posts have some spoilers re: Pluribus, so follow those links at your own risk. Pluribus is best enjoyed if you start watching it knowing as little about it as possible. But without spoiling anything, I think MG didn’t put enough y’s in the wayyyy in “I’m sure I’m reading wayyyy too much into that tweet”. There is no 3D chess being played here.
I wrote just a few months ago that I firmly believe generative AI tools not only can be, but already are, used to create genuine art. My problem with AI slop isn’t the AI, it’s the slop. Whatever “standard digital tools” Keith Thomson used to create this, the result is a turd.
Pluribus, among numerous other merits, is a beautifully filmed show. Thomson’s published paintings are beautiful. The image Tim Cook posted on Twitter/X (and which the Apple TV account retweeted) is ugly and awkward. It either is AI-generated slop or it looks like AI-generated slop for no artistic or thematic reason whatsoever. Occam’s razor would suggest the conclusion that it simply is AI-generated slop, and Keith Thomson suckered Apple into paying for it.
That question is taken from a recent Spectator poll. Their experts offer varied answers, so I thought at the near quarter-century mark I would put together my own list, relying mostly on a seat of the pants perspective rather than comprehensiveness. Here goes:
Cinema
Uncle Boonmee, In the Mood for Love, Ceylan’s Winter Sleep, Y Tu Mama Tambien, Four Months Three Weeks Two Days, from Iran A Separation, Oldboy, Silent Light (Reygadas), The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, Get Back, The Act of Killing, Master and Commander, Apocalypto, and New World would be a few of my picks. Incendies anyone?
Classical music (a bad term these days, but you know what I mean):
Georg Friedrich Haas, 11,000 Strings, Golijov’s Passion, John Adams Transmigration of Souls, The Dharma at Big Sur, Caroline Shaw, and Stockhausen’s Licht operas perhaps. Typically such works need to be seen live, as streaming is no substitute. As for recordings, recorded versions of almost every classic work are better than before, opera being excluded from that generalization. So the highest realizations of most classical music compositions have come in the last quarter century.
Fiction
Ferrante, the first two volumes of Knausgaard, Submission, Philip Pullman, and The Three-Body Problem. The Marquez memoir and his kidnapping book, both better than his magic realism. The Savage Detectives. Sonia and Sunny maybe?
Visual Arts
Bill Viola’s video art, Twombly’s Lepanto series, Cai Guo-Qiang and Chinese contemporary art more generally (noting it now seems to be in decline), the large Jennifer Bartlett installation that was in MOMA, Robert Gober. Late Hockney and Richter works. The best of Kara Walker. The second floor of MOMA and so much of what has been shown there.
Jazz
There is so much here, as perhaps the last twenty-five years have been a new peak for jazz, even as it fades in general popularity. One could mention Craig Taborn, Chris Potter, and Marcus Gilmore, but there are dozens of top tier creators. Cecile McLorin Salvant on the vocal side. Is she really worse than Ella Fitzgerald? I don’t think so.
Popular music (also a bad term)
The best of Wilco, Kanye, D’angelo, Frank Ocean, Bob Dylan’s Love and Theft. How about Sunn O)))? No slight intended to those listed, but I had been hoping this category would turn out a bit stronger?
Television
The Sopranos, the first two seasons of Battlestar Galactica, Srugim, Borgen, and Curb Your Enthusiasm.
Assorted
Hamilton, and there is plenty more in theater I have not seen. At the very least one can cite Stoppard’s Coast of Utopia and Leopoldstadt. There is games and gaming. People around the world, overall, look much better than ever before. The Museum of Islamic Art in Doha and the reoopened Great Egyptian Museum in Cairo. The new wing at MOMA. Architecture might need a post of its own, but I’ll start by citing the works of Peter Zumthor. (Here is one broader list, it strikes me as too derivative in style, in any case it is hard to get around and see all these creations, same problem as with judging theatre.) I do not follow poetry much, but Louise Glück and Seamus Heaney are two picks, both with many works in the new century. The top LLMs, starting (but not ending) with GPT-4. They are indeed things of beauty.
Overall, this list seems pretty amazing to me. We are hardly a culture in decline.
With another holiday closure on deck and light calendar of events, the rate market is off to another uneventful start this week. In fact, the average lender barely budged from last Friday. But it was enough for MND's 30yr fixed rate index to tick down by 0.01%.
This is the lowest level since October 28th--just barely edging out the lows seen on November 25th. There were only 5 days in November and one day in September with lower rates. Before that, you'd have to go back to September 2024 to see anything lower.[30 year fixed 6.194%] emphasis added
Tuesday:
• At 9:00 AM ET, FHFA House Price Index for October. This was originally a GSE only repeat sales, however there is also an expanded index.
• Also at 9:00 AM, S&P/Case-Shiller House Price Index for October. The consensus is for an 1.1% year-over-year increase in the Composite 20 index for October.
• At 9:45 AM, Chicago Purchasing Managers Index for December.
• At 2:00 PM, FOMC Minutes, Meeting of December 9-10<
Monetary policy can control nominal aggregates, even at the zero lower bound.
Monetary policy can address real problems caused by unstable nominal aggregates.
Monetary policy cannot address real structural problems.
Japan is a near perfect example of all three claims. I hope this post will also dispel a few myths about Japanese inflation, interest rates, exchange rates, fiscal policy, etc.
In late 2012, presidential candidate Shinzo Abe promised Japanese voters that he would create higher inflation. He went on to achieve a series of impressive electoral victories. So much for the claim that voters hate inflation. (They hate some types of inflation—not all.)
[As an aside, at roughly the same time the Fed committed to a more expansionary monetary policy, which ended up fully offsetting the effects of fiscal austerity, contrary to predictions of Keynesian economists that expected the fiscal austerity to discredit market monetarism. Instead, their failed predictions of a slowdown in the economy during 2013 discredited simple Keynesian models that ignore monetary offset.]
By the time Abe took office at the beginning of 2013, Japan had experienced nearly two decades of very mild deflation, and near zero NGDP growth. This deflation had occurred despite one of the most reckless fiscal expansions in human history, pushing Japanese public debt much higher as a share of GDP.
Interest rates were stuck at zero, and many economists argued the BOJ was “out of ammunition.” Instead, Abe’s policies ended deflation and led to significant growth in nominal GDP, which has continued right up to the present:
This growth in NGDP occurred despite the fact that Abe instituted a tighter fiscal policy, which greatly reduced Japanese budget deficits. Other than a single year during Covid, Japanese public debt has leveled off as a share of GDP. So much for “fiscal dominance”:
As predicted by the musical chairs model, the growth in NGDP helped to return Japanese unemployment back to its historical norms of close to 2%. Most real problems are structural and cannot be solved by improved monetary policy. One problem that can be solved is high unemployment that is caused by insufficient nominal growth:
Many people are surprised by the fact that Japanese interest rates have recently been increasing, after a period of nearly 30 years of near-zero rates. I am surprised that Japanese interest rates remain so low, far below levels in countries such as the US, despite solid NGDP growth.
Yes, it’s a “30-year high”. But the short-term interest rate is still only 0.75%.
“Things to come”? Maybe, but exchange rates are close to a random walk.
Back in the 2000s, I warned that Japan was making a mistake running large budget deficits and that what they really needed was monetary stimulus. In the 2010s, I made the same criticism of US budget deficits. Each time, I was told “deficit don’t matter” because interest rates were low at the time. I pointed out that rates might not stay low forever, and that these debts would still be on the books when interest rates started rising.
Now I’m being told that the public debt situation is so bad in Japan and the US that the situation is almost hopeless, and that we will have to monetize the debt with an easy money policy and give up on 2% inflation. That’s what people mean by “fiscal dominance”.
I’m not buying either argument. It was never true that “deficits don’t matter”, and I don’t believe that the US and Japan are now stuck with fiscal dominance. If we end up with high inflation it will be because the Fed screwed up with a flawed Phillips Curve model (as they did in the late 1960s, and again in 2021-22), not because they were forced to inflate. Not only is the public not clamoring for the Fed to inflate the price level, voters have now decided that inflation is public enemy number one. I believe the public overrates the harm done by inflation, but in this case I’m sort of pleased with the misconception—it will help us to avoid fiscal dominance.
Yes, it is possible that at some point in the distant future the US might experience fiscal dominance. That would occur if our government continues down the road to banana republicanism. But it is also possible that at some point we come to our senses and address the budget deficit, as we did in 2013 (before reversing all those gains five years later.) As long as the Fed targets inflation at 2%, Congress will be forced to eventually address the budget. That’s what it means to have monetary dominance.
If Congress wishes to impose fiscal dominance, they would eventually need to tell the Fed to raise its inflation target above 2%. And don’t assume that 3% would solve the problem, it wouldn’t. One percent higher inflation reduces the real debt by an extra 1% each year, but it would also raise nominal interest rates by 1% due to the Fisher effect. At best, you get a one-time gain from reducing the real value of the existing stock of debt, but those gains are reversed the next time you revert to 2% inflation. Many people who read Thorsten Slok’s recent comments on monetary and fiscal policy might erroneously infer that fiscal dominance is a bigger problem when the debt is primarily short-term:
Actually, the one-time gain from an unexpectedly inflationary monetary policy is greatest when the debt is mostly long-term bonds. Never reason from an interest rate change.
Under our current fiscal trajectory, we would eventually need much higher inflation to avoid default. But I very much doubt that Congress has the votes to tell the Fed to raise the inflation target to 5% or 10%. So how does Congress exert fiscal dominance? The President could appoint doves to the Fed, but after what happened to Biden, what president wants to be known for creating high inflation? (If Trump wants easy money the motivation would be economic growth—he couldn’t care less about long run fiscal sustainability, or anything else that occurs after he leaves office.)
So why is the Japanese yen currently so weak? In a word—China. Japan’s strength has been their ability to export manufactured goods such as cars and consumer electronics. Now they face competition from a rising power with 11 times their population, which can export many of those same goods at much lower prices. This is what explains the dramatic fall in Japan’s real exchange rate—not monetary policy.
Japan’s solid but not excessive NGDP growth and their low unemployment rate suggest that monetary policy is currently not the problem. Japan’s problems are structural. Back in the 1980s, who would have expected Japan to struggle so much in competing not just with China, but also with places like Taiwan and Korea. What are the Japanese versions of TSMC and Samsung? Why does Japan seem stuck with a 20th century economy?
Japan’s monetary policymakers have done all they can, now Japan’s policymakers need to figure out a way to make their economy more dynamic.
PS. Keynesian readers may be skeptical of claims about Japan made by a market monetarist. I suggest they look at Paul Krugman’s excellent 2018 paper on Abenomics, which reached similar conclusions.
Market Design
