Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

(i gotta bolt! family movie time.)

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

visiting a plant in the company of an entourage is quite different from private conversations.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

We’ll see. A massive tide just came in for Nvidia. We’ll just have to see how it does when, eventually, the tide goes out. Everyone looks great when they are swimming in water this high. Again, I wish it well, and am not betting against it. My view is cautious.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

I’m not saying they play fair. I’m saying they play effectively.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

it’s honda that i mostly admire, though i’ve a nostalgic attachment to nissan. i haven’t followed the firms enough to have too deep a view of them, other than i am a fan of honda’s products.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

Not in China! They bring multitudes into the industries they deem strategic. We could learn something!

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

(i don’t know whether Nvidia will prove a flash in the pan. as i said, i wish it well. but it — like most great things — is a result of serendipity, and the casino capitalism now surrounding it might hurt more than help the task of building a durable *industry*.)

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

China favors firms on the front side, but structures industries to be ruthlessly competitive, which limits the social cost of the favoritism. I think that’s probably the best we can hope for in a fallen world. Distinguishing between nepotism and valuable soft information is not generally possible.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

your tenacity is admirable, but no. defense contractor CEOs do not typically meet independently with foreign leaders, particularly adversaries. yes, it’s products are dual use, but it relies on defense work, and should have precisely zero defense work with its current leadership.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

if you want Americans to become scientists, you’ve got to kneecap the money hose thru finance, management consulting, and monopoly tech. Americans capable of doing science get faced with a choice of six years of lab slavery or $200K to start traveling around, meeting people, building spreadsheets.

Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

i just haven’t commented on GM, Ford, what used to be Chrysler. i think they, especially Ford, are firms that have survived only by milking the chicken tax, and have made the US more dangerous and less efficient doing that. i’m not putting them on a pedestal. our industrial policy has been bad.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

(i’m having a hard time deciding what i think about the Honda/Nissan merger. firms worthier of comment perhaps.)

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

You’ve got to shovel money to industries, not to firms. There’s no way to avoid corruption on the front end. You need competition to shave it away on the back. The structure of industries is a public concern, not a private outcome. 1/

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

Nvidia right now is a flash in a pan, a niche GPU maker suddenly very special because it turned out its specialized chips were just what two important applications need. I wish it well, but we’re in a pretty fragile position, one Nvidia, one ASML, one TSMC. it’s a very dangerous industry structure.

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

I guess I’m just not comfortable with a person who independently meets and speaks with foreign leaders, both adversaries and allies, running essential defense contractors. Call me old fashioned, but I think that’s a conflict.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

Right now, dead is all US producers absent protection. Autos are defense-strategic, so we’ll protect, but I wonder if we have the wisdom to protect without just fattening favored subpar producers, like Tesla. Lots of firms pursuing autonomy. I’d not bet on Tesla to outperform.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

We’re stumbling our way into a 1930s scale politico-economic crisis. Even over my relatively calm lifetime, it’s remarkable how much of what’s normal now would have been politically possible then. Things will get very fluid. They may just kill us. I’d not pretend to know the limits of the possible.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

BYD is the biggest, yes. But it’s like 30% share; the rest of the market is quite dispersed. Our champions are like Boeing and Intel, firms that become essentially our industries. China might err its way into that, but so far, across its wide panoply of industries, it’s done a great job avoiding it.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

Tesla did a good job for a while. The fact that it’s shares trade on the same basis as DOGE — based on Elon’s showmanship rather than anything real — has killed the firm. Yes, China did in its canny way learn from Tesla. Tesla is now dead, modulo the support and protection it will win from Trump.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

that SpaceX remains private has served it well. it too has accomplished some extraordinary things. let’s see how long that lasts before Elon’s intercessions destroy it, one way or another, or more optimistically force divestment by a leader recklessly freelancing his own idiosyncratic foreign policy

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

yeah. Canada has a VAT and provincial taxes. there is work to be done sorting this stuff out, not insuperable problems. re the portfolio: you advocate the programs, bring taxes along for the ride, rather than the other way around. VAT as standalone is a terrible idea.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

no. you get electric cars like China (almost) does, by openly subsidizing real capital formation. relying on bubbles to replace the work of economic calculation has served the US poorly. China does a slap-shot job of disciplining what it subsidizes, still does much better. 1/

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

it wisely subsidizes competitive industries, rather than firms. it has little need for champions or high equity flyers. it actually builds rather than hypes (while Tesla turns into Boeing, repurposing a six year old platform rather than innovating). /fin

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

VAT is regressive. VAT plus universal benefits is not. You can soften the edge of VAT with lower rates on necessities. The issue is, in order to create space for noninflationary expenditure, you have people who spend their marginal income. that limits progressivity of taxes for this purpose. 1/

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

i’d not support the VAT without a portfolio of universal benefits that it funds. that’s the tricky politics: VAT is part of a decent endgame, but you can’t advocate it on its own, you need to negotiate the package. /fin

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

He should never be able to accumulate it. I support taxing loans www.interfluidity.com/v2/9028.html but it isn’t enough. if his holding less of these enterprises forces a more conservative valuation of them, that’s a feature not a bug.

interfluidity » A loan is income plus basis

in reply to this