U.S. Politics

On May 16, news sources reported that Republicans planned to eliminate subsidies for nuclear power, leading a number of pundits to complain that Republicans were destroying nuclear power in the US (e.g. this otherwise good Noahpinion post).

The stock market told a very different story. I will illustrate with the stock prices of the two companies that seem most focused on building new nuclear power plants.

NuScale (NYSE:SMR) was up more than 52% between April 30 and May 22.

It was up a further 19.6% on May 23 in reaction to an executive order that is aimed at speeding up approvals of nuclear plants.

Oklo (NYSE:OKLO) was up more than 67% between April 30 and May 22. It was up a further 23% on May 23.

Both stocks were up slightly on May 16 and the subsequent trading day, indicating little interest in the news about subsidies.

The market seems to be pretty clear: the benefit of reducing regulations is so much larger than the benefit from subsidies that the subsidies are hard to distinguish from a rounding error.

It’s also fairly likely that some of the market rise up through May 22 was influenced by the executive order that was published on May 23. In other words, it seems pretty likely that somebody profited from advance knowledge of the executive order. I’m pretty sure that’s covered by the SEC’s rules as illegal insider trading.

I can’t prove insider trading here. It’s possible that there was public information that contributed to the pre May 23 rise. The NYT reported relevant rumors on May 9, but both that article and the stock market reaction to it suggest that the administration didn’t decide until sometime later on what kind of executive order to make.

I don’t care enough about insider trading to be too outraged about this particular example of likely corruption. But I’m a bit sad that the most corrupt administration in US history manages to look better than its critics on nuclear issues.

Note: I own stock in NuScale, and some uranium processing companies.

Trump has become seriously overconfident. Republicans in Congress now face a dilemma similar to what Democrats faced last summer when it became apparent how senile Biden was.

The senate vote against Canadian tariffs is just the beginning of congressional resistance.

Voters in swing states a month or two from now will put more pressure on Republican politicians to change course. As with Biden, leaders will be slow to speak out against Trump until after most of them have privately decided on some sort of break with him.

It seems very likely that there will be some sort of dramatic confrontation between Trump and Congress and/or the courts. The outcome may be quite messy, but I don’t see how Trump can avoid being widely recognized as a pathetic loser. If the Republican party doesn’t distance itself enough from Trump soon, it will become a minority party for quite some time.

I doubt that a recession could be avoided merely by Trump conceding to reduce tariffs. The uncertainty that he creates is roughly half the problem. Economic recovery depends on a clear signal that the US is a safe place for business, such as Trump leaving office or being restrained by another branch of government.

What does this mean for the stock market?

The historical analogies that I can find aren’t very close, but weak analogies are better than nothing.

My main analogy is the Carter Administration’s credit controls (March 1980), which caused a short recession. The market dropped 7% in two weeks after they were announced. It took nearly 2.5 years for a sustained recovery to begin. But the harm from the credit controls, which were clearly intended as a temporary measure, probably ended within a couple of months.

My second analogy is 9/11. The market dropped nearly 12% in 10 days, then recovered enough that the decline in 2002 was likely unrelated. If the US unites against tariffs as clearly as it united against Al Qaeda, then I’d be buying now. But Trump would likely need to make another mistake to produce that much unity.

Tariffs are likely doing somewhat more harm than those two events, but it’s fairly plausible that the markets have mostly reflected the effects.

AI stocks look cheap. I expect to buy more sometime over the next few months. But the uncertainties will likely delay the next bull market long enough that it’s wise to wait for more news before buying.

Here are some scattered comments about the 2024 elections.

I was glad to have Manifold Markets and Election Betting Odds to watch the results. I want numbers, not encumbered by the storytellers and emotions of the news media. I also watched the odds that Nate Silver tried to update, but that was a total flop.

Peak Polarization

I see many weak hints that the polarization of the US has subsided compared to 2020.

Continue Reading

I’ve seen plenty of people recently ranting about how presidential candidate X is obviously terrible because of their position on Y. It’s often the case that if I were voting solely on Y, I’d agree that candidate X is terrible.

I see patterns suggesting that those people tend to choose X first, and then choose one or more Y’s that fit an opponent of X.

I want to push back on these patterns, and explain why I expect to be confused as to how scared I should be by the upcoming election results, by focusing on issues based on how important I’d think they were if I didn’t know who would be running.

The most important issues are at least an order of magnitude more important than typical issues, so I ought to base my vote on the most important issues if at all possible.

Continue Reading

Nearly a book review: Situational Awareness, by Leopold Aschenbrenner.

“Situational Awareness” offers an insightful analysis of our proximity to a critical threshold in AI capabilities. His background in machine learning and economics lends credibility to his predictions.

The paper left me with a rather different set of confusions than I started with.

Rapid Progress

His extrapolation of recent trends culminates in the onset of an intelligence explosion:

Continue Reading

Book review: Four Battlegrounds: Power in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, by Paul Scharre.

Four Battlegrounds is often a thoughtful, competently written book on an important topic. It is likely the least pleasant, and most frustrating, book fitting that description that I have ever read.

The title’s battlegrounds refer to data, compute, talent, and institutions. Those seem like important resources that will influence military outcomes. But it seems odd to label them as battlegrounds. Wouldn’t resources be a better description?

Scharre knows enough about the US military that I didn’t detect flaws in his expertise there. He has learned enough about AI to avoid embarrassing mistakes. I.e. he managed to avoid claims that have been falsified by an AI during the time it took to publish the book.

Scharre has clear political biases. E.g.:

Conservative politicians have claimed for years – without evidence – that US tech firms have an anti-conservative bias.

(Reminder: The Phrase “No Evidence” Is A Red Flag For Bad Science Communication.) But he keeps those biases separate enough from his military analysis that I don’t find those biases to be a reason for not reading the book.

Continue Reading

This week we saw two interesting bank collapses: Silvergate Capital Corporation, and SVB Financial Group.

This is a reminder that diversification is important.

The most basic problem in both cases is that they got money from a rather undiverse set of depositors, who experienced unusually large fluctuations in their deposits and withdrawals. They also made overly large bets on the safety of government bonds.

Continue Reading

In 1986, Drexler predicted (in Engines of Creation) that we’d have molecular assemblers in 30 years. They would roughly act as fast, atomically precise 3-d printers. That was the standard meaning of nanotech for the next decade, until more mainstream authorities co-opted the term.

What went wrong with that forecast?

In my review of Where Is My Flying Car? I wrote:

Josh describes the mainstream reaction to nanotech fairly well, but that’s not the whole story. Why didn’t the military fund nanotech? Nanotech would likely exist today if we had credible fears of Al Qaeda researching it in 2001.

I recently changed my mind about that last sentence, partly because of what I recently read about the Manhattan Project, and partly due to the world’s response to COVID.

Continue Reading

Book review: The Resilient Society, by Markus Brunnermeier.

This is a collection of loosely related chapters on current political topics such as pandemic response and macroeconomics. I haven’t read the whole book. But since each chapter is designed to stand alone, I feel comfortable reviewing a subset of the book.

They’re more readable than the comparable Wikipedia pages, but less rigorous.

Continue Reading