The Amazon Factor

 I always enjoy observing irony in current events. One of the great ironies, among so many, of the Trump presidency was that his greatest real achievement (in my opinion), the rapid development and successful deployment of vaccines against Covid, was completely undermined by his own supporters. Putin seems to have achieved very little from his reckless invasion of Ukraine, beyond the irony of uniting his adversaries and accelerating Europe’s transition to sustainable energy, thereby undermining the core basis of Russia’s own economy. Beware of unintended consequences!

 

Now there is a sweet irony that can be attributed to the hip progressive movement, people who love to complain about others getting rich even when that can benefit everyone, especially the people they claim to represent. The irony concerns the bête noir of that movement, Amazon.

 

I love almost everything about Amazon. Perhaps I am a bit biased, since the firm has done more than any other to sustain my own wealth since I had the good fortune to buy a few shares in the firm several years ago. We love to attack people like Bezos, and perhaps even people like me who cling on to his coattails like parasites. But I think Amazon has been of benefit to humanity and has the potential to support our development even further.

 

 I will certainly be holding onto my precious shares, in the belief that there is a lot more upside than downside, despite the squalls of 2022 caused by the return of sensible interest rates. One test I often apply is to imagine what would happen if a company increased its prices by 50%. Discounters and people like Walmart could not pull off such a trick because of competition and price sensitivity among their consumers, and others are limited by regulation. But I believe that Amazon could double its annual Prime subscription, and also impose fees on excessive returns, without losing many customers at all. They have kept prices low while following the sound retail philosophy of using a cost advantage to grow the business, but one day they will start looking for margin. And the value and quality of their service compared with any competition means they could do it and retain most of their base. For me, that shows a share with further upside.

 

We all have access to a wider range of goods at affordable prices thanks to Amazon and can lay our hands on them ludicrously quickly. Many small and start-up businesses rely on Amazon for marketing and distributing, benefiting them and their consumers. The cloud computing business reduces prices for all, and the streaming supports our abundant entertainment options.

 

But it is something else about Amazon that has tickled my sense of irony. They have revolutionised employment markets around the world, to the benefit of those seeking. Fair wage and fair treatment. Amazon have succeeded in restoring some balance between capital and labour where trade unions and countless left-wing politicians have manifestly failed.

 

It started a few years ago when Amazon decided to go big on fulfilment. I always found this decision rather strange, since it involved considerable capital and human operating costs, things which the tech giants generally avoid. But Amazon decided it could do this well, outcompete the established players such as Fedex, and create a lasting point of difference against other suppliers. It seems to be working.

 

The upshot is that Amazon has quickly become the second largest employer in the US, behind only Walmart. And these jobs are not for highly paid coders, but hourly paid work for people picking goods in warehouses and people driving trucks.

 

Progressives love to hate Amazon for providing these jobs, blinded by the profits Amazon makes and tales of how the jobs are demanding and demeaning. It is true that the jobs are far from glamorous. But progressives seem to assume that the alternatives for these people are as self-employed craft beer brewers and experimental artists. In reality, the alternatives are far worse, even when alternatives exist. Think of all the people sweating in semi-legal car workshops, or in the kitchens of small restaurants, or cleaning buildings. Compared with these employers, Amazon is a dream. They pay on time, are clear of expectations, do not tolerate abuse, and provide hygenic working conditions. A few truck drivers may struggle to find somewhere to pee while still meeting their quota, but generally hardships are few and conditions are fair. Progressives should be thrilled.

 

And Amazon seems to have moved the needle. When I write about the job vacancies I observed on my trip to Europe earlier in the summer, I quoted demographics, fewer immigrants, Covid and a few other factors as partial causes. But I missed one: many of the people who might be working in airports or restaurants are now at Amazon.

 

The same Amazon factor is noticeable in the US in similar markets. It is also affecting the public sector. Last week a report on the PBS Newshour showed how many local authorities were struggling to recruit people as garbage collectors or in other service capacities, and one hard-pressed manager bemoaned the fact that he could only offer $15 while Amazon was giving $18. Before, the excellent benefits and strong unionisation have meant that public sector leaders could usually find recruits to replace retirees. This appears to be no longer the case.    

 

So now central banks are facing an unusual dilemma. Cooling down the economy has in recent decades been rather easy: tweak interest rates upwards, and soon unemployment will trend upwards to cool demand. Most of the cost would be paid by the marginal workers with fewer skills or in the wrong locations, but hey, rather than people holding wealth.

 

Now the central banks are raising rates rather quickly, yet the labour markets remain buoyant, at least in the US and some other developed markets. There have been some announcements of layoffs, but the ones I have noticed have been from over-hyped technology companies and some old economy companies like Ford, and it is notable that Ford are firing their office staff rather than anybody on a factory floor.

 

Sadly, it is all likely to be somewhat temporary. For decades we have heard predictions of how many unskilled jobs would be permanently lost to automation. It feels strange to be observing precisely the opposite. We can thank Amazon. But we should note that those same jobs driving delivery vans and picking goods off shelves are ripe for replacement by robots, especially once driverless vehicles start to gain serious traction. Amazon is no doubt aware of the possibility, and banking on it to maintain their cost advantage in the coming decades.

 

But meanwhile we have an economy that progressives have dreamed of, one where labour has as much leverage as capital, even at its less skilled end. What an irony that two of the causes have been the feverish recruitment of the bête noire of progressives, and blowback from the anti-immigration policy of the racist capitalists. One group lauds the reason by suffers the outcome, while the other loves the outcome but hates the cause.          

The China Deal

 2022 will be remembered for the Russian assault on Ukraine, an extraordinary choice by the Russian leadership. I still believe there is a dimension to the situation that is not yet in the public domain, because otherwise the decision seems not just reckless but seriously ill-judged; indeed it seems likely that ultimately it will lead to the fall of the regime. Sadly, there will be a lot more blood to spill and nuclear risk to endure before that endgame can be reached.

 

As far as countering the Russians is concerned, I still believe that the Biden administration has performed excellently. The CIA (and MI6) are clearly still very strong in matters Russian, and on this occasion being set up to fight yesterday’s war has yielded a bonus. The western strategy, unspoken because of its cynicism and cost in Ukrainian suffering, is to play for a winning draw. Once initial defeat was averted by Russian ineptitude, accepting a defeat became unnecessary and politically unacceptable. But playing to win carries too many nuclear risks to countenance. Hence we see a stalemate, a situation likely to endure for several more months or even years.

 

I am also convinced that 2022 will go down as a year of lost opportunity by that same Biden administration. The Russian invasion created a window of opportunity for a reconciliation with China. The Russians provided the pretext to reset the narrative, and the strategic incentives for both China and the US to be partners are huge. Sadly, most political incentives in the US work in the opposite direction, but I do believe that a more far-sighted State department could have perhaps pulled off a historic deal.

 

Rather than merely sniping about their lack of vision, I spent some time pondering what the parameters of such a deal could look like. That way I could confirm my belief that the strategic conditions exist and go further in assessing what the blockers are and how they might still be overcome.

 

Any holistic deal with China must have three broad components. There would have to be a chapter for sustainability and development, a chapter for trade and a chapter for defence and strategic interests. Each chapter could be supported by a set of reformed institutions for global governance.

 

The first chapter would be the easiest to draft and enforce and have the most obvious benefits to the signatories and to the rest of humanity. The world faces a climate crisis for which the solutions are clear but the political will lacking. Much has been done to reduce poverty, infant mortality and malnutrition, but the task is far from complete.  Covid has highlighted a different set of risks, but science has the demonstrated potential to mitigate these too. For me one of the saddest moments in the whole pandemic was witnessing Doctor Fauci being forced by political imperative to equivocate in having worked with China to understand Covid and other pathogens. Surely such cooperation can only serve to benefit all of us?

 

Strong goals already exist for all of these challenges, from the updated UN millennium development goals to the latest COP climate goals. China clearly sees the benefits available, and already actively participates in many global fora, while the US quietly and valiantly takes the lead in scientific research and funding. But too often the execution is stymied by narrow national and commercial interests and by political cowardice. It would not take a huge stretch to eliminate most of these obstacles. Perhaps the most significant step would be to reform the governance and mandates of the World Bank and the IMF to be more representative of global population and GDP. It was worrying to see how both of these bodies were able to sanction Russia: the cause was just in this case, but a truly global body (rather than a western dominated one) would not have been able to take such steps. A reformed global aid structure could reduce the incentives for individual nations to plough their own furrow with schemes such as Belt and Road.

 

The second chapter would be about trade, and this also need not be difficult to draft or to execute. There have been backlashes against trade in many parts of the world, but the potential net benefits remain huge. Countries need stronger policies to help those citizens negatively affected, and the true costs of transport (including environmental costs) should be considered, but otherwise specialisation will lead to cheaper and more abundant goods for all, notably those most in need.

 

Once again, the “rules based” system needs some reform so that it is no longer a “western imposed” system. China needs to agree to follow the rules, including for intellectual property. But trade is good, and the EU provides excellent templates for its governance, including for regulations around product quality and items such as privacy. Over time, trade pacts can develop to include more services.

 

An annex to the trade chapter would be required to handle controls on human movement, including for education. It feels weird that the US appears to be drifting towards a cold war with China, while its streets and its educational establishments become ever more populated by Chinese faces. Goals of free movement are laudable, but politically tough and requiring long transitional periods and stipulations on those choosing to migrate.

 

The tough chapter would be the one for defence and security. Again, the goals are not too difficult to envisage; the challenge would be to provide a palatable and trustable path and to find roadmaps to deal with a host of thorny issues.

 

China, the US and everybody else (except the leaders of Russia and North Korea and a few other renegade places) have a clear interest in progressive nuclear disarmament, and indeed in disarmament generally. One neat provision that most might accept in a more trusting climate could be that every dollar spent on national defence should be matched by a dollar committed to global peacekeeping. The global bodies to keep the peace are those with the greatest need for reform, and the Russian veto would initially be insurmountable, so a parallel security body to the UN, including all but the renegades, may be necessary during a transition.

 

Then there is a long list of conflicts and frozen conflicts and historical anomalies to handle, and therein lie the toughest nuts to crack. In most cases it will be impractical to reach an immediate solution, notably because such diplomacy tends to brush over the reasonable wishes of local actors. The places where clear agreements up front would be required are Taiwan, Russia and North Korea. For Taiwan, a Hong Kong type process envisaging eventual reunification would be the major concession to China to make the whole deal possible. In return China would need to clearly distance itself from Russia in its conflict in Ukraine (and its frozen conflicts elsewhere). China can still maintain a policy of not interfering in domestic affairs of other countries, yet be clear that the Ukraine situation is in no way domestic. In the case of North Korea, it is a matter of agreeing an endgame while waiting for the dynasty to implode. China would need to accept refugees and a responsibility to finance redevelopment of North Korea, but the US and its allies would need to agree to some regional disarmament in return.

 

For sure such a deal would be tough to pull off even in propitious circumstances, and the context today is far from helpful. Yet I would argue that it will only get more difficult over time, and Russia’s belligerence does offer a window. Other parties, most especially the EU but also the parts of the UN and existing institutions that are not western puppets, would need to be closely involved.

 

It is clear to me that the main block towards such a deal lies with the American mindset and its politics. With Trump in the wings, China would be mad to agree to anything without a US legal basis that could not be reversed. And Biden’s domestic capital to spend on this deal would be miniscule while the Republicans are in full MAGA mode. But it would be nice to see any evidence that the Biden team could even contemplate such a historic outcome and would start to chip away at public attitudes towards China.

 

I will dream on.   

How did I become so weird?

 Every so often a situation leaves me thinking that I live on a different planet to the rest of humanity. I still recall one occasion during a choir rehearsal when the Star Wars movies came up in conversation. It was clear that every other member was animated and engaged by the topic, while I sat in bemused silence, having never seen any of the films and not really understanding why anyone would want to. It sticks in my memory because these were people who I thought were like me; many were of my own generation and level of education and experience and of course we shared a common passion for singing early music. I went home pondering my weirdness.

 

I have similar experiences whenever I am with my wife’s extended family, as I was last weekend. On these occasions I can use my excuse of demographics, because I am one of the few who is not of Philippine extraction and few of the group are close to my age. But even so my weirdness always strikes me at these gatherings, as I sit patiently at the side of conversations I don’t really relate to. Shopping is always one topic of difference; for many of the group an afternoon at an outlet mall is their idea of heaven, while for me it is much closer to hell.

 

This week I have decided that my conclusion is rather lazy, and I should challenge it, I came up with three sub-questions. Am I truly weird? If so, how did that happen? And does it matter?

 

I think I can answer the last sub-question first. I don’t think it matters at all. Why should it matter, since variety is the spice of life? I have the blessing of a reasonable level of self-confidence, so I don’t go around equating weirdness to abnormality or inferiority or suffering attacks of anxiety or depression. Perhaps this self-confidence is one explanation for the weirdness itself since I don’t go out of my way to conform. I feel that I have a full enough social life, including the blessing of love from many sources. And I don’t think my weirdness, such as it is, creates an unacceptable challenge to others – I don’t go around groping or fighting or (nowadays) bullying. True, I find it difficult to contribute to some conversations and in some events, but I generally have the patience to sit to the side when that happens; I have always been blessed by a contentment with my own company; perhaps that forms another licence for weirdness.

 

For the first sub-question, I am probably not very weird at all, and it can be a bit arrogant to lazily live in a mindset that I am. As humans, we are all remarkably different to each other, and therein lies our magic.

 

In vaguely stressful situations, we can convince ourselves that we are strange or don’t fit in. I used to hate going to the sort of parties where you stand around making conversation with people you don’t know very well with a drink in your hand. I always felt that I was the only one standing around on my own, shunned by everybody else and too inadequate to be worthy of anyone wanting to converse with me.

 

After suffering through this on many occasions, I made some resolutions. First, I would not be desperate. Unless there were people I knew or people inviting me to join a group, I would be content to stay on the side and be patient. I realised soon enough that nobody was looking at me or humiliating me, and that it would not be long before some kind soul would come and talk to me. Secondly, while alone I consciously observed other people. Surely enough I always discovered that a large minority of other party guests were in the same boat as me, nervously alone and afraid to mingle. Indeed this held true for most of the guests who were not in groups of friends who they arrived with. I was not unusual at all! After a while I could even summon the courage the approach some of these people myself. Now, while I can’t say I actively enjoy such gatherings, they no longer fill me with dread.

 

I can us the same techniques in other situations to test out the extent of my weirdness, and they always yield the same answer, that I am not weird at all. It may seem as though everybody else at a gathering has common interests that diverge completely from my own, but that is misleading. There are always others on the sides, I do not stick out as an aberration, and if I am patient and make some effort then I can find others who are a bit like me in some respect.

 

So I am not so weird after all, and when I convince myself that I am weird, it is often displaying an arrogant superiority complex. Look, everybody else is obsessed with their phone, and cannot stop themselves taking mindless photos, and display countless other pieces of evidence of their inferiority! Clearly this is not a healthy way to be thinking.

 

So I am not uniquely weird, but in fact everybody is weird, in that we all have our unusual traits. At last, this gives me a healthy place to explore the second sub-question. What are my most unusual traits, and how might I have acquired them?

 

In a random group of a hundred people, like in the game show, where would I be in a class of one? There is the Star Wars thing, to which could be added an animated or superhero movie, indeed any movie not about credibly real people doing credibly real things. What else? Among those with smart phones, mine probably has fewer photos stored than any of the other ninety-nine, and I probably care less than any of the others about how I might look in a photo. I probably spend less time scrolling my phone and grazing material such as ads, social media, celebrity gossip, or news than any of the others too. I am also probably the most cynical and resistant when it comes to brands and product claims. In Trader Joe (a rare brand that I somewhat trust) I will consciously choose the items not labelled as organic, because I do not trust the claims or marketing and link the word “organic” only to the word “overpriced”.

 

How did this all happen? There are bound to be a million reasons, but I think I have discovered two critical ones.

 

The clue to the first root cause comes from thinking about the person I know who displays most of the same unusual traits. That person is my sister. And the common link is our mother. As the excellent Progressive ads like to tell us, we all turn into our parents eventually, and that is an especially painful realisation for both me and my sister, because we both struggle to admire our (deceased) mum. But my paragraph of strange traits matches her character very closely. She hated all films. She cared not a jot for grooming or appearance. She shopped only on price and was acutely cynical about brand claims. My sister and I both love certain types of film but the other traits have been passed on, by the magic combination of genetics and environment. We are both turning into our mother, and we would be smart not to deny it.

 

The trait missing from mum’s personality is the one about grazing and celebrity. Mum devoured the Daily Mail each day and tracked TV celebrity gossip avidly. So that tendency must come from somewhere else. In my case, I suspect the key factor was living in countries where I did not speak the native language between 1996 and 2012, the period when information became ubiquitous and visual and when smartphones and social media took off.

 

During this time, I lived in countries where English was spoken well. As someone too lazy to learn local languages very well, I did not lack for much. But I was somewhat removed from the culture, and the gossip. I always would claim that I could follow a conversation but could never get the jokes. Social media and celebrity culture depend on such nuance.

 

Perhaps to compensate, I got into the habit of doubling down on deep content. I follow sports, but the whole long game rather than the highlight reels. I read The Economist and Guardian Weekly from cover to cover but barely glance at the pictures and have become very cynical of other sources. I blog, but resolutely (stubbornly?) refuse to include any pictures.

 

I am pleased that I took the time this week to ponder the questions about weirdness more deeply. The conclusions are clear. I am weird, but so is everybody else, and that is OK, indeed wonderful (though no cause for arrogance). Cocktail party survival techniques are valuable. One advantage of living in a large city where I speak the native language is that I can find others who share most of my weird passions, should I wish to. And, should we care, we can probably trace a lot of our own weirdness to a handful of root causes.                

Stresses, Scams, and Biased Judgments

 It felt very good to get home from Los Angeles last week, even though the apartment feels emptier without our son. I took away a rather negative view of LA. IT has taken me a few days of reflection to realise that perhaps I my judgment was not entirely fair.

 

Even the airlines seemed to line up in favour of New York over LA. On the outbound journey, we were delayed four hours, with barely an acknowledgement and no apology. On the way home, everything went unusually well. The airline allowed us to swap our middle seats for two together. The plane departed right on time and took a short flight path. The journey was improved by reading an Economist end to end (I could not find a seller in LA until the airport), and a wonderful British film called The Duke – Jim Broadbent is a hero of mine. Our luggage was first on the belt, and our taxi delivered us home before the flight had been scheduled to land. Would that air travel always worked out this way!

 

Our primary negative impression of LA came from the vast number of homeless people lining the streets. We frequented downtown and a neighbouring district, parts of Hollywood, various metro lines (subway and bus) and Santa Monica. Each of these areas were blighted by homeless, seemingly at all hours of day and night. Most of their lives seemed unrecoverable. Many were angry and vocal. Too many were young. Initially it made us feel unsafe, and it affected the hours in which we were willing to be outside. Once we had become more familiar, it just made us very sad.

 

We have a growing homeless problem in NYC too, but somehow LA’s seemed a lot worse. But after some reflection I reasoned that perhaps the difference was not so great. Firstly, our climate in NYC tends to drive the homeless indoors and into larger settlements. But then I wondered if the main factor was where we happened to be. How often in NYC am I walking the downtown or deprived areas after dark? How often am I frequenting the major hubs like the Port Authority terminal? Yes, I travel the subway in the evening frequently, but the trains are longer and better lit so perhaps the same number of homeless can appear less visible.

 

Then I wondered if other aspects of my negativity about LA might be equally biased. I considered how the trip was one of high stress that had little to do with its location. Three of us were packed tightly together trying to execute a tough agenda under time pressure in unfamiliar surroundings We had to find Lucas somewhere to live, then sign a lease and then furnish the place. We had to find accommodation and transport options that were somewhat affordable. And we all had to deal with the emotional stress involved in a major change in our lives.

 

It is no wonder we were somewhat stressed and that we took out our stresses by complaining about our location. We worked remarkably well as a team and achieved a great deal on the trip, but inevitably we had differing opinions, we bickered at times and each of us suffered moments of intolerance. We spent a lot of money, something which is never good for my mood. It is only afterwards that I can perhaps revise some of my opinions of the place where that stressful environment played out.

 

Then there were the scams. Scams are a part of daily life here in the US. Perhaps 50% of the phone calls I receive are from some bot lying me that my car needs servicing or that I owe the IRS a fortune. I have learned to quickly disconnect and move on without becoming angry. But in LA I was angry already, and then two original scams came along to make me even more angry.

 

Firstly, we parked our rental car in a regular downtown car park, one that clearly advertised that it only accepted payment by credit card. Trying to exit, my first card was rejected by the reader with an error message about a failed modem connection. With no practical option, I inserted a second card, this time with success. But the following morning came a massage from Chase inquiring about a suspicious use of that second card which had nothing to do with me. Congratulations to Chase for being so alert, and I accept that the hassle involved has been minimal – replacement cards have arrived today. But the experience still leaves a nasty taste, and some of that taste is directed towards the location where the scam happened.

 

The second scam came while I was walking to the rental car to return it to its garage, so at a time when I was already nervous (would the car have been stolen or damaged overnight? Might the rental company try to charge me for something?). This scam involved a call purporting to come from my electricity supplier, with another supplier connected on the call claiming that I had agreed a contract with them. This was a clever scam because the scenario was quite credible – we are bombarded with offers to change supplier. The purported new supplier tried to charge me $900 to cancel the non-existent contract, and then, the clever part, the person claiming to be from my actual supplier took a sympathetic tone but tried to charge me to rectify the situation. Only then did I twig that both callers were a part of the scam. Cue another bad mood.

 

We have plenty of scams in New York so it is ridiculous of me to blame LA. Now I am more relaxed, I can review some of my other harsh judgments. True, it is a calumny that the best real estate in oceanside Santa Monica has been used for a highway, but we have our own examples, notably Coney Island and Chinatown. It is sad that concrete and cars work against any sort of community feel and extend the California city far too far, but then we have Staten Island, Westchester and Nassau County doing similar things. Their climate is undoubtedly better; New York is truly horrible in summer. Both have garbage and smells, but we have more rats. Our drivers are less respectful and more reckless, our roads less well-designed and with more potholes. Perhaps our culture is better, but the vanilla musicals playing throughout Broadway to ill-behaved audiences are not really a credit to us, while the beautifully produced Dudamel performance we witnessed at the Hollywood Bowl was a credit to LA. Perhaps the comparison is not so one-sided after all.

 

Now I am starting to wonder if I am guilty of similar biases in my comparisons between the USA and Europe, during my current spell of negative thoughts about America. It is true that my recent trips to Europe have been in circumstances where my spectacles are likely to be rose-tinted, loaded with singing holidays, friends, family, great food, and relaxation. My comparisons need to be more specific, to check that they don’t just reflect more propitious circumstances.

 

I have not lived in Europe for ten years, so I don’t know about scams, but I am pretty sure that the legal environment in Europe is more orientated to support the consumer rather than the corporation. Why do these US scammers seem to be beyond the reach of the law? As for homeless, I remember my daily walk from Waterloo Station to Waterloo bridge in London, so perhaps Europe has its problems too. As for culture, there may be advantages on both sides of the Atlantic: in Europe I certainly don’t expect to be able to replicate the oasis of my Sunday mornings. California probably wins for climate, but I don’t recall anywhere in Europe being so horrible s a humid New York summer. 

 

But the cities and towns are surely much more attractive there, with less bad housing, fewer highways (and without potholes), more green space, more courteous and safer driving, better mass transit, and fewer rats and smells. The people of the USA would surely do well to work on some of these eminently fixable unflattering comparisons, instead of the relentless self-promotion of “The greatest city on earth” or the ludicrous “Tinseltown”.

 

So my conclusion is that I should be kinder to LA, but not necessarily to the USA as a whole. It is certainly a good lesson to temper judgments to take account of circumstances. My recent European experiences could almost have been tailor-made to make me feel positively, very unlike my stressful LA experience.         

Clues to a District

 I have spent much of the last few weeks travelling. For two spells, I have had the joy of helping our children to settle into new lives. In Utrecht, our daughter had already started her job and selected her apartment, and my role was the practical one of moving her stuff from the other side of the country and embellishing it with a few purchases from IKEA. Now, in Los Angeles, my wife and I are helping our son. In his case, his job starts imminently, and together we have had to find an apartment and then assist with the same moving process. Thank goodness for IKEA!

 

It has been an instructive few days in downtown LA. The office of our son is in an iconic modern building in the heart of the city, and he made the smart move of deciding to live initially without a car and concentrating the apartment search very close to his work. So we booked a hotel less than a mile away, half way between downtown and a gentrifying district called Koreatown, with the intention of viewing several places on foot.

 

My mental model for Koreatown was Flushing, a bustling Asian district near us in Queens with bursts with chaotic energy twenty-four hours per day. As soon as we started walking on Sunday morning, that illusion required rapid adjustment. There was the office, towering ten blocks to the east, and I assumed there was Koreatown, a few taller buildings ten blocks or so to the west. But where was the bustle? Even when we made it to Koreatown, the streets were wide and most buildings low-rise, and there were few people, except those passing by in the cars and parking in the many lots for shops. True, Sunday morning is hardly the busiest time of the week even in New York. But this was not Flushing. This was Anytown, USA.

 

Then we spent two days getting to know a whole series of micro districts, all within three subway stops or fifteen minutes on the bus from each other, all walkable, though maybe not comfortably in the midday heat. We had an immediate need to understand these micro districts as potential places for our son to live. We had to use all our senses and to look out for important clues.

 

Perhaps the most useful clue of all has been the density of Starbucks locations. Near our hotel there are no Starbucks at all. In Downtown itself there are many Starbucks, but the density tails off very quickly after a few blocks in any direction. One way to define the gentrified part of Koreatown is to map out where there are Starbucks and where there are no Starbucks. By this definition, Koreatown has clear boundaries; Western avenue to the west, Vermont to the east, a block north of Wilshire to the North and eighth avenue to the south.

 

Within the Starbucksified area, people walk with confidence rather than loiter. Other retail establishments are branded, have attractive shopfronts, but also security. There is garbage on the street, and also a few tents where homeless people sleep, but the prevalence of both is lower. The clearest sign of gentrification (apart from Starbucks) are the number of blocks that have been converted into apartments by developers and are advertising for new tenants.

 

Once you leave this area, the signs for tenants are still there but are haphazard and hand-written. Apart from a few fortresses of fast food chains, the retail establishments are bodegas, or thrift shops, pawn shops, or simply boarded up. Many cars are very old and look like they have been parked in the same spot for a long time. The clearest sign of a lank of gentrification (apart from the absence of Starbucks) is that everywhere seems to close at 8.30pm, even the liquor stores, bodegas and food outlets. This is not an area to be outside alone after dark.   

 

Then there is downtown itself, a place of extraordinary contradictions. There are many high-rise office buildings a few high-end malls and some swanky restaurants. The corporate community is well served, but it is also noticeable that these establishments all employ security and do not open late. The developers have been even more active here than in Koreatown, perhaps taking advantage of some zoning changes or simply of depressed prices during the worst of the pandemic.

 

But there is little feel of destination or community. The grid of wide streets works against pedestrians, and for some reason the sidewalks are populated by hundreds of apparently dead e-scooters, giving the impression that a bomb has gone off and everybody has scarpered. There are also blocks surprisingly near the heart of the city with vacant lots and offering cheap parking. The rents for lots here must be miniscule compared with Manhattan.

 

I can’t imagine that the corporates and the high-end developers will allow the place to remain so marginally safe for very long. But how did they allow it to go so far downhill in the first place? The impression is that the corporate citizens all arrive by car and depart by the same means, using the local facilities during the day but anxious to escape within their automotive fortresses after their working days have finished. Hopefully an influx of young professionals into the newly renovated apartments will change that dynamic.

 

I cannot help but compare the centre of LA with the centre of Utrecht. There are clues in Utrecht too. In the less affluent areas, most retail establishments are unbranded, many offering cheap fast food, and the supermarkets are smaller and sell necessities rather than luxuries. But everywhere stays open until midnight, the streets are well-lit, and it feels safe to walk everywhere. The dividing lines seem to be more a result of careful urban planning than of wealth attracting wealth and poverty attracting neglect. I am sure that once we rent a car, we will find gated enclaves within LA of unimaginable opulence. Utrecht’s opulence is unstated and humdrum. But Utrecht’s poorer areas still have some civic pride, and the denser ones might even attract Starbucks.

 

We will fulfil our mission, guided by the abundant clues and thankful that our son has a budget that allows him to cluster with the up-and-coming rather than the down-and-out. There will be many advantages for him in LA, and, thanks to Uber, he might be able to enjoy them without needing to buy a car.

 

But there is something sad about this city, and for me it does not reflect well on its residents, its politicians, or its nation. Our hotel has a few European tourists in it. What will they say about America when they go home, after having worked out the need to retreat to their room after 8.30pm (and hopefully having not learned that the hard way)? Even the LAPD seem to have given up on this district, resorting to helicopters for any patrolling that we have seen.

 

Searching for root causes, an important culprit is the car. The centre of Utrecht was built before cars existed. New York has such constrained land that the car has not been allowed to dominate. But in LA the needs of the car determine the city. It has sprawled and sprawled, and hence segregated and segregated. Because of cars and roads, nowhere has the human density to build a true community (like Flushing). And the car has enabled most residents to become blind to the misery around them. They can simply drive around the worst districts, or in the worst case drive through them with the car doors securely locked. As a concept for a city, I can imagine little worse. 

More Economist Leaders

 Over the last couple of months, I have endured a new experience. For the first time since I started writing the blog, I find myself short of inspiration. I started the discipline of writing three times per month nearly ten years ago and it has served me well, forcing me to develop a pipeline of ideas while emphasising execution. In all these years I have found that maintaining a balance has been quite straightforward. Rarely has the list of ideas become so long that I have had to ignore topics of interest to me. And rarely have I been scratching around looking for copy.

 

I am wondering whether the current drought might be significant in some way. Perhaps it is about the season, with its lack of interesting news and energy sapping humidity. Perhaps an overriding factor is my weariness with the USA, which I try not to allow to dominate the blog but which does consume a lot of my thoughts. Perhaps my brain is slowing down somehow, or I am not doing enough to stimulate it. Or perhaps it is just chance.

 

In the meantime, I am pleased today to be able to go back to a new staple, that of The Economist leaders. I am more than ever grateful to The Economist. To me, its writing seems to get better and better, while little else in media seems to inspire me at all: as an example, my opinion of the PBS Newshour is becoming rather jaundiced. Last month I was travelling and missed out on The Economist for a single week, and I felt its absence keenly.

 

As usual this week, the six leaders cover a wide space, but part of the value can arise from looking for themes and connections. One rather sad point to note is the absence of any leader about the war in Ukraine. Has this become an unremarkable part of everyday life now, just like the war in Syria did before? It is does portend well for the Ukrainians if that is true.

 

As usual this week there is one leader about money, and as usual it is the least interesting. The topic is the future of private equity. Having ridden a boom using leverage and cost cutting to make a quick buck, and then another one using zero interest rates and an ocean of capital to bid up tech valuations, the article wonders where the next opportunity will come from, noting that the smart owners of private equity firms have already diversified to increase their chances.

 

If this article has any wider relevance, it might be about how wealth and finance drive US policy these days. The economy needs debt leverage and optimism to thrive, and policy makers know that they cannot turn off the taps. One place fed by the flood of capital has been China, which poses a key dilemma to the US, given that, having milked the place for decades, it seems to have declared an unofficial war on the Chinese.

 

The other seeming outlier among the leaders is a scornful rebuttal of Chile’s proposed new constitution, as hopelessly complex, utopian, and left leaning. Sadly, The Economist is probably right. The forces of the left do have a habit of squandering their opportunities, becoming mired in factional agendas and struggling to turn laudable but vague goals into effective policy.

 

One wider relevance of this might be to link back to US politics. In the world of microscopic attention spans and sound bites, a well-funded machine can succeed only with something to rail against, and the woke left falls into that trap time and again.

 

Not surprising for a London based periodical, the opening leader celebrates the fall of Boris Johnson. A rather dull piece argues that Britain, and the Conservatives, have deeper problems than the obvious ones removed by the defenestration of a serial liar with no agenda beyond power. David Brooks on PBS made the interesting point last month that politics nowadays tends to be more about celebrity than policy, and Boris Johnson is the epitome of that trend. He leaves behind chaos, a complete absence of vision, and the continuing wreckage of post-Brexit Britain.

 

The third leader was the strongest condemnation of today’s USA that I have read in The Economist, a magazine that has always played up America’s strengths, notably its economic dynamism. All the claims of US exceptionalism are refuted, leaving only its ungovernability as its remaining unique trait. In my current anti-USA mood, I happily lapped up every word. On my trip to Europe, a series of bemused Brits asked me whether the USA could be in as hopeless a mess as the news headlines indicate and asked me if I saw any hope. My replies were consistent: yes; and none. The article supports my view that things have to get a lot worse in the USA before they might be able to improve, and that politics can only hinder matters – which leaves war or revolution as the remaining solutions.

 

Two articles later in the magazine only support this negative prognosis. The excellent Lexington returned in despair from a visit to flooded Miami, observing how even a wealthy enclave cannot act in its manifest interest. There was also an article noting how the “new right” is becoming entrenched in key institutions, so that the next Trump might be able to have more impact than Donald. I tried to work out what the guiding principles of this “new right” might be, beyond a cynical use of power to pursue corrupt personal interests. I failed.

 

These depressing tracts about the West set the context for a fascinating leader sandwiched between them, about Tiktok. The growth path of Tiktok is truly astounding, and, predictably enough, it is now looking to turn followers into advertising dollars and to diversify into e-commerce and news feeds.

 

The first lesson here is how China always wins in the end. Their first attempts to copy Western technology and business are ridiculed, but the educated, humble, and commercial Chinese learn and come back stronger. Facebook has been eclipsed already.

 

Then there is the debate about whether Tiktok is dangerous and how the West, and China itself, may react. The article points out the two obvious dangers, before discounting privacy concerns as overblown. But the concern that the Chinese censors could influence the global news feeds is real and immediate.

 

In one way this gives me cause for schadenfreude. Western news feeds have been bought by Rupert Murdoch. People like me hate that, and Trump too, but don’t complain when “our” Jeff Bezos buys The Washington Post and heave a sigh of relief when maverick Elon Musk pulls out of a deal for Twitter. We have given our brains over to the super-rich: could the Chinese communist party be any worse? Sadly, it probably can. And perhaps the stage is set for Tiktok to be the defining battleground of the new Sino-US cold war. Here is my guess at the outcome. China wins. And we all lose. The 2022 lost opportunity for reconciliation may be the last one for a long time.

 

The fourth leader offers the ultimate context for all this. Starting with a lovely HG Wells quote that history is a race between education and catastrophe, the leader looks at the state of education around the world. The good news is that many more kids are now in classrooms. The bad news is that they do not seem to be learning much, and in many places lost education is a horrible legacy of Covid. With such technological riches available, this is one challenge that should be soluble, and indeed this is a reason for much needed optimism.

 

The leader does not offer data, but I think I read that China is where education has improved the most, while Europe has a growing lead over the USA, with other developing nations advancing only slowly.

 

In the context of the miserable picture elsewhere in the leaders, it is good at least to see a topic that might ultimately turn things around. The politics of China, the USA, Britain, and leftist Chile don’t seem to have much chance, though China’s great run will continue for a while, dragging more generations out of poverty. And at least the scions of private equity will still be able to find ways to get even richer.                  

Civic Pride

 I have finally returned to New York after a full month in Europe, spending time in Portugal, Italy and The Netherlands. I have to confess to being in a rather negative frame of mind about the USA just now. I expect that has something to do with the broken politics and the steady stream of awful headlines relating to gun violence or Supreme Court rulings. Then there is the bias that comes from places always appearing at their best while we are on holiday and surrounded by family and conviviality. And July, with its humidity, is hardly the most conducive of times to make judgements about New York.

 

No doubt these factors all play a part. I am probably also influenced by a sub-conscious affirmation bias. Having decided with my wife to leave the USA next year, I am probably looking out for ways to make that choice appear smart, either by building up where we will be going or knocking down where I am. Recently I made a list of what I will miss when I leave. Apart from family and friends (and there are other family and friends in Europe), the list had precisely one item. Our New York Sunday mornings are like an oasis to me; they will be irreplaceable where we are heading. But I can’t think of anything else.

 

I keep trying to explain my relative preference towards Europe in different ways, to others and to myself. I sense that there has to be more to it than all these biases. The politics, horrible as they are, hardly affect our daily lives, at least most of the time. It is true that I am seeing Europe in a positive context, but I can argue that my life in New York is almost like a holiday too. I keep coming back to the notion of liveability, but have struggled to pinpoint exactly what factors contribute to the differences I sense.

 

So I decided to dig one level deeper, by directly comparing everyday experiences. Over the last week I have spent a lot of time walking in Dutch cities and towns. This morning I took a walk through Queens. By noting differences, my goal is to identify what might one place more liveable than the other.

 

To my surprise, it all started with tidiness. I am not a neat freak at all. I do the minimum to keep my environment tidy, my hygiene is poor, and I dress lazily. I don’t think I notice these factors very much. But in comparing my walk this morning with the ones in Holland, I conclude that the Dutch streets are clean and tidy while the American ones are anything but. In Queens, there is garbage everywhere. Some is legally left in bin bags by the roadside, but much else is just casually tossed away and seems to fester without ever being picked up. The result includes lots of unpleasant smells, especially at this time of year. I can’t help but feel that the New York rats must thrive on the filth too.

 

As well as the trash, the streets are just ugly. The few trees are not tended, and the pavements are of an ugly concrete, full of holes and weeds and rough surfaces that we must navigate carefully to avoid tripping.

 

In contrast, Holland is clean and organised. It is far from beautiful Unlike Austria, for example). The houses tend to be of austere dark brick and very functional. Nobody cares much for plants. Pathways are narrow. But all areas are tended. It is clear where pedestrians are supposed to be. There is very little trash. There are plentiful bins (segregated for recycling), and people take the time to use them properly, even for their domestic trash.

 

Then I made a link between the streets and the people. The Dutch people are clean as well. They are far from elegant and are known for poor dress sense (unlike Spaniards or Italians), but people turn themselves out decently. In Queens, in contrast, folk are often wearing ill-fitting track suits and look like slobs, with unkempt hair and flesh protruding from places where fashion would not indicate. In many cases, their gait is also rather lazy. I have never noticed this before today, but the difference was clear once I made the effort to observe it.

 

There is plenty of diversity in Holland, though not quite as much as in Queens. Between Amsterdam, Utrecht and Doesburg, I covered old and young, urban and rural and tourist and local. But everywhere people were neater. It helped that a smaller proportion seemed down on their luck or exhausted or physically impaired. In Queens there is sickness, obesity and obvious poverty to deal with.

 

Is it possible that the issue is Queens rather than the USA generally? I don’t believe it is. I think that all the cities and towns I have visited are similarly run down, dirty, ill-designed and full of people putting little effort into their appearance. If anything, Queens has more energy and less sickness than most places.

 

I suspect that transportation choices play a role here. More Dutch than US people walk; vastly more cycle; and those that drive use smaller cars. The cities have been designed to reduce car traffic and minimise street parking. There are plentiful green spaces, small and large. The public transport is great and the hubs are a delight to visit. Speed limits are low and are adhered to: that may be due to the efficiency of fines or simply that people are more respectful of each other and fewer are angry. In Holland I got a strong sense that everybody felt a part of a shared environment. In the USA (even more outside New York), the residence and the car are personal fortress and interactions with others are minimal.

 

Putting all this together, I wonder if what the Dutch have managed to create is something that can be described as civic pride. The local environment that people live in is decent and improving, and people feel motivated to play their part towards progress. There are written and unwritten rules (and the Dutch are not shy about sharing their opinions), but most people comply out of choice and from their own interest. While technology is used extensively to enforce the rules, often it is not really needed. By contrast, the streets in the US are manned by a police force acting more like an armed urban militia than as a community resource.

 

Civic pride sounds like a woolly sort of goal, but perhaps it can be the key to unlocking a happier and more effective society. It is possible to suggest some policies that could work to engender civic pride.

 

Urban planning is critical, and the Dutch are world leaders, stemming from their need to house a dense population on land prone to flooding. Utrecht is a good example of a city that has worked step by step to improve living conditions. Decent housing is a constant focus. The ancient centre has been restored intelligently. Transport and zoning initiatives have led to gradual progress over many decades towards a liveable blueprint.

 

That is for the physical infrastructure. Just as important is the human infrastructure. You cannot go around telling people to look after their environment and dress neatly. But you can work to make sure everybody has a place to live that they can feel pride in and an education to give them a chance of making a fair living. You can ask those with more wealth or salary or a wish for fast cars to contribute a bit more in tax. Well-funded public services can offer help to those with mental health issues.

 

Politically, have many parties keeps the agenda lively and compromise essential, as well as creating energy among the people and a sense of accountability for politicians. Genuine devolution to a local level is helpful. And a small country with a minority language that is part of the EU has every incentive to learn and to collaborate.

 

The result may be a country with civic pride, whether in city, town or village. Such a society engenders its people to pull in a common direction to make things better, rather than to hide behind the wheel or an SUV. Holland was the clearest example, but I can see something similar happening in Portugal too. Sadly, what I see in the USA is very different indeed.