It is bad enough when business models make people rich for destroying the planet. Do we have to enrich those who do nothing at all?
John Maynard Keynes had a famous quip in his central work, The General Theory.... which goes, slightly re-arranged:
"Interest today rewards no genuine sacrifice, any more than does the rent of land. The owner of capital can obtain interest because capital is scarce, just as the owner of land con obtain rent because land is scarce. But whilst there may be intrinsic reasons for the scarcity of land, there are not intrinsic reasons for the scarcity of capital. ... It would be possible for communal saving through the agency of the state to be maintained at a level which will allow the growth of capital up to the point where it ceases to be scarce. Now, while this state of affairs would be quite compatible with some measure of individualism, it would mean the euthanasia of the rentier, and consequently, the euthanasia of the cumulative oppressive power of the capitalist to exploit the scarcity value of capital."
Keynes assumed that this day would naturally come as capitalism developed and piled up endless riches in the form of money. But recently Thomas Piketty came along and stated that this day will never come, because for some curious/mysterious reason, returns on capital are persistently higher than they have a right to be, and higher than the economic growth rate. That means that the rich keep getting richer, on a magic escalator, forever, and the only way to change this, historically, has been the horsemen of the apocalypse- war, pestilence and famine. Economic depressions can be pretty effective as well. Sadly, we have rendered all these mechanisms less effective than they have been in the past, so need to come up with something else for this modern age.
It is quite clear that advanced economies have plenty of capital. Companies routinely give money back to shareholders or buy back stock, for lack of anything better to do with their mountains of money. Interest rates tend to be low. The Federal Reserve has campaigned mightily over the last three decades to raise interest rates, to what they deem "normal" rates, which are roughly 5%. The Fed is heavily influenced by the private banking industry, which benefits (perhaps) from higher rates, as do rentiers. Each time, however, some catastrophe has intervened and sent rates back to zero. Whether the latest push turns out be the charm is not clear, but Paul Krugman expects rates to eventually return to very low levels. Japan has had near-zero rates for a couple of decades, with little harm to its domestic economy. So it seems as though the natural interest rate in this era, among stable, peaceful economies, seems actually to be very low, approximately equal to the inflation rate, and thus approximately zero.
 |
| History of US interest rates and Japanese interest rates. We keep flirting with zero rates. |
This abundance of capital has sent investors to the stock market as a better bet for growth. This has sent stock valuations higher, with price/earning ratios coasting at much higher than historical levels. There is a metric called the "Buffet index", which relates stock valuations to total GDP, and this is also unusually high, twice what it has been historically. Whether all this reflects overall wealth, or the greater profitability of current corporations (due to monopolies, lack of regulation, repeated stock buy-backs, shortchanging workers, etc.), or the push of too many investors into this market, it is a worrisome situation over the long term, as returns may fail to justify expectations.
At any rate, the question is.. how to address inequality and particularly the basically unjust income of rentiers, and bring Keynes' prophecy to fruition? The recent tax changes by the Democratic congress, to impose a cost on stock buy-backs, is a tiny step in the right direction. The the fact that federal taxes on income from work (except when that work is done for hedge funds!) is twice that on investment is a clear bias, inherited from the Reagan era, that needs to be eliminated. Outright wealth taxes are also needed, as are programs against off-shore wealth hiding and abuse of trusts. There is a very long list of ways to reduce the ratchet of wealth, and especially inherited wealth, that fundamentally corrodes the basic equality on which our social and political system is (or should be) based.
The modern monetary theory community has long advocated for another policy that would address this problem, which is to end the issue of federal government bonds. They see these bonds as a relic of past times when we were on the gold standard, and really had to borrow money from the public to make ends meet. With a fiat currency, closely managed by the Federal Reserve, the federal government has no need to borrow at all. It can and does print as much money as needed ("print" being a metaphor for creating mostly electronic forms of money). State and local governments, on the other hand, are financially constrained, and need to put out bonds if they want money for large projects, beyond what taxes bring in. In 2022, the federal government spent 476 billion dollars on interest payments on the debt, which may increase drastically if inflation rises on a durable basis.
 |
| Who holds US federal bond debt? |
These are the classic rentiers, whom we are collectively paying roughly half a trillion dollars a year that could be much, much better spent on other things. The last time that the federal bond market came into doubt, as the Clinton administration, under pressure from the deficit scolds, went into surplus and started paying back the "debt", who raised a hue and cry? The banks, of course, who could not imagine a world without this manna falling from heaven. Well, the fact of the matter is that the foreign countries, and the banks, and all the other rentiers, could just as well hold the fundamental debt instrument of the US government- the dollar, instead of bonds. We don't have to pay all these entities a premium to take dollars off our hands, if that is what they want.
What keeps us from ending these bond payments? It isn't economics, it is purely legislative fiction, the same kind of fiction that makes congress go through the absurdities of raising the "debt" ceiling. The US federal debt is the obverse of economic growth, for which more currency needs to be issued. The Fed and treasury issue new dollars into the economy, channeled through federal spending, and a notional debt is created. The current law just means that one debt (dollar bills) must be traded for rentier-paying debts (bonds) ... because ... we used to do so. But it is no different than the debt implied by every dollar bill: that the government, and the economy in total, stand behind each dollar bill as a manifestation of faith and credit (and good federal management). The debt does not need to be "paid off", it will not drag down future generations, and most of all, it shouldn't be compounded with interest payments to the least deserving recipients imaginable.
A review of "The ABC of Communism", by Nikokai Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhensky, 1920.
Nikokai Bukharin was one of the 1917 revolutionaries that brought communism to Russia. He was in New York (as was Leon Trotsky) in February 1917, as the news of the budding revolution spread around the world, and joined that revolution in May. He and Trotsky were penning a socialist newspaper at the time, and were particular fans of the New York public library- a great example of a public-private partnership, (not to mention free speech), which houses countless products of private enterprise, in a public facility. Back in Russia, they helped establish the world's first socialist and communist state, destroying the nascent parliamentary system of Karensky, and then the arrayed forces of the old aristocracy in the Russian civil war. They did this by promising something even better than parliamentary democracy- a proletarian state that would forever place workers in power, and end the power of capital and the aristocracy.
A convenient document of the thinking behind all this is the "The ABC of Communism", by Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhensky, put out in 1920 and republished long thereafter to provide a popular argument for communism and the soviet system. It encapsulates the economic and political theories that animated, at least at a conscious level, the new rulers. Bukharin was relatively young, regarded as a leading theoretician, and somewhat on the liberal side, not quite as ruthless as Stalin and Lenin. An autobiography and film about his wife tried to paint a positive image of him and of what things would have been like if Bukharin had managed to not get murdered by Stalin. So this work should present a relatively coherent and attractive case for communism.
 |
| Bukharin (center) in happier days, in Soviet leadership. |
Well, I have to say that it is not very impressive as either economics or politics. While it provides insight into some capitalist dynamics, it fundamentally fails to understand the most basic drivers of economic systems, and obviously has not engaged with Adam Smith, who had written almost 150 years before.
On the plus side, there is a lengthy treatment of the economies of scale, which rightly describes the advantages that large industrial enterprises have over smaller ones. The point of this, however, is mostly political, to show why anarchism, which was one of the many revolutionary threads still active at the time, made little sense. The Bolsheviks were besotted by industry and large-scale industrialization, which was at least one area where they put a lot of resources and accomplished a great deal, saving their skins in world war 2, later on.
"Consequently, THE LARGER THE UNDERTAKING, THE MORE PERFECT IS THE TECHNIQUE, THE MORE ECONOMICAL IS THE LABOUR, AND THE LOWER IS THE COST OF PRODUCTION."
Secondly, the author's treatment of cyclical crises in capitalism is not too far off the mark. They pin the problem on over-production, which then leads to workers getting laid off, loss of income and buying power, loss of credit, loss of ancillary business, and the downward spiral of depression. Whether lack of demand or over-supply, imbalances of this kind are indeed central to this kind of crisis. The author's solution? Better organization, in the form of state control over every aspect of the economy. They ceaselessly rail against the waste of capitalism- the competition with similar products, the disorganized manner of production by competing and cut-throat capitalists, the lack of overall harmonious coordination for the public good. But what of Adam Smith? It turns out that the chaos of capitalism has its beauties, and its efficiencies, squeezing every drop out of the environment, and out of workers, in its Darwinian competition.
Thirdly, they make a great deal out of the ambient excesses of capitalism, which were truly horrific, and were clear enough all over the world, leading to the communist's program of world-wide revolution by the working class. The monopolies, the strike-breaking, the child labor, the inhuman conditions, and the vast inequality- these were unquestionable evils, some of which remain endemic to capitalism, others of which have been ameliorated through reform in (relatively) democratic countries. As is typical, criticizing is easy, and there were, and remain, plenty of problems with capitalism and with democracy as well. The question is whether Bukharin plumbs the essential depths of economics sufficiently to come up with a better economic system, or of its associated politics to come up with a better form of the state.
And here the answer has to be, as history demonstrated, no. In their discussion of large scale enterprise, they go through a rather particular example to show the power of scale.
"How great is the advantage of this system was made manifest by some American researches instituted in the year 1898. Here are the results. The manufacture of 10 ploughs. By hand labour: 2 workers, performing 11 distinct operations, worked in all 1,180 hours, and received $54. By machine labour: 52 workers, performing 97 operations (the more numerous the workers, the more varied the operations), worked in all 37 hours and 28 minutes, and received $7.90. (We see that the time was enormously less and that the cost of labour was very much lower.) The manufacture of 100 sets of clock wheels. By hand labour: 14 workers, 453 operations, 341,866 hours, $80.82. By machine labour: 10 workers, 1,088 operations, 8343 hours, $1.80. The manufacture of 500 yards of cloth. Hand labour: 3 workers, 19 operations, 7,534 hours, $135.6. Machine labour: 252 workers, 43 operations, 84 hours, $6.81."
... "All these advantages attaching to large-scale enterprise explain why small scale production must invariably succumb in capitalist society. Large scale capital crushes the small producer, takes away his customers, and ruins him, so that he drops into the ranks of the proletariat or becomes a tramp. In many cases, of course, the small master continues to cling to life. He fights desperately, puts his own hand to the work, forces his workers and his family to labour with all their strength; but in the end he is compelled to give up his place to the great capitalist."
If we read this carefully, and do the math in the case of the ploughs:
$54 / 1180 hours = 4.58 cents per hour in wages
$5.40 per plough in cost
$7.90 / 37.5 hours = 21.1 cents per hour in wages
$0.79 per plough in cost
... we can see that not only is the plough almost ten-fold cheaper (some of which is presumably shared with the buyer in the market), but the workers were paid almost five-fold more per hour. How is this a bad reflection on capitalism? This is by way of telling why small scale production dies in a capitalist system ... it doesn't stand a chance. But the authors fail to mention that, in their own example, some of these gains are apparently shared with workers. So the gains in efficiency are shared quite widely- with customers, with workers, and also with the managers and capitalists, since this new form of work requires much greater contributions of management and capital equipment.
Bukharin and Preobrazhensky are "doctrinaire" communists, blind to a gem hidden in their own data that tells us how and why the capitalist system really works. Why did workers flock to the cities when there were agricultural jobs to be had? It was higher pay. Were the new capitalists holding workers as serfs against their will? Not at all. In the US likewise, whatever the horrors of capitalism, it did not hold a candle to the horrors of slavery.
More broadly, Bukharin and the communists generally had little appreciation for the difficulties and role of management. The surplus labor theory of Marxism leaves no room for management contributions of value to the final product- it is all excess labor stolen from the worker, to be restored in the idealized worker state/paradise. The capitalists are parasites:
"In communist society parasitism will likewise disappear. There will be no place for the parasites who do nothing and who live at others' cost."
Rentiers may be parasites, but managers are not. Theirs is the job to locate the resources, drum up the customers, to build the factories, to negotiate the wages, to run the work and fire the lazy. It is not an enviable or simple position to be in, rather is perhaps the most complex in the capitalist system, or any economic system. (And it is noteworthy that failures of management are endemic in government, of even the most enlightened kind, where crucial parts of this constricting set of incentives are often lacking.) It is the competitive forces pressuring on all sides- from customers, from workers, from government, from the financial markets, etc., that are integrated by the petty bourgeoisie / kulak class into a solvent enterprise, and are the soul of the capitalist system, for which they take a premium of profits off the top.
Bukharin and colleagues never pause to consider why capitalism is so dominant:
"Contemporary capitalism is world capitalism. All the countries are interconnected; they buy one from another. We cannot now find any country which is not under the heel of capitalism; we cannot find any country which produces for itself absolutely everything it needs."
Why is this? There was no shortage of experiments in the 1800's in socialistic styles of life, extending from the Shakers and the Owenites to the Tolstoyans. Few of them even survived very long, and none had a broader impact, let alone rising to the organic level of country-wide economic system. Religious monasteries are probably the only example of successful long-term socialistic organizations, though most are run on more or less totalitarian lines, with a whole separate set of emotional and personal committments. This starkly unsuccessful track record should have been a red flag- forgive the pun!- that while socialist utopianism is very popular, it is not practical.
This cavalier disregard of management and the elementary aspects of human economic demand (aka desire, aka greed) naturally came back to bite the communist Soviets, when, in the absence of a well-thought out way to run things in the wake of winning power on the back of their fantasy of a perfectly (and apparently easily, thanks to a mythical "statistical office") ordered and efficient economic system, they fell to the lowest device in the manager's toolbox- terror.
 |
| Bukharin on his way to execution, after having helped Stalin hound Trotsky to death. |
Why the loose economics, fantastical pronouncements, and embarassing lack of realism? The reason becomes apparent as you read through "The ABC of Communism", which is that its main purpose is to inspire hate. It is a political tract that, as was current among communists then and since, seeks to frame an enemy, inspire hatred of that enemy, and support for the valiant vanguard that will vanquish that enemy.
"What civil war can compare in its destructive effects with the brutal disorganization and devastation, with the loss of the accumulated wealth of mankind, that resulted from the imperialist war? MANIFESTLY IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT HUMANITY SHALL MAKE AN END OF CAPITALISM ONCE AND FOR ALL. WITH THIS GOAL IN VIEW, WE CAN ENDURE THE PERIOD OF CIVIL WARS, AND CAN PAVE THE WAY FOR COMMUNISM, WHICH WILL HEAL ALL OUR WOUNDS, AND WILL QUICKLY LEAD TO THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES OF HUMAN SOCIETY."
... "We are thus confronted by two alternatives, and two only. There must either be complete disintegration, hell broth, further brutalization and disorder, absolute chaos, or else communism."
Millions of people all over the world were thoughtless enough to accept this poisoned chalice, and went down the road of economic brutalization, famine, mass terror, and the gulag. Communism turned out to be a power play, not an economic Oz. It was a bright and shiny political lie. We are in the US becoming familiar with the power of such lies- their use of the basest and most powerful instincts- hate, and hope. Their ability to cut straight through any rational and empathetic analysis, and their ability to make seemingly reasonable people believe the flimsiest absurdities.
The perils of developing sleeping, or anti-sleeping, drugs.
Sleep- the elixir of rest and repose. While we know of many good things that happen during sleep- the consolidation of memories, the cardiovascular rest, the hormonal and immune resetting, the slow waves and glymphatic cleansing of the brain- we don't know yet why it is absolutely essential, and lethal if repeatedly denied. Civilized life tends to damage our sleep habits, given artificial light and the endless distractions we have devised, leading to chronic sleeplessness and a spiral of narcotic drug consumption. Some conditions and mutations, like narcolepsy, have offered clues about how sleep is regulated, which has led to new treatments, though to be honest, good sleep hygiene is by far the best remedy.
Genetic narcolepsy was found to be due to mutations in the second receptor of the hormone orexin (OX2R), or also due to auto-immune conditions that kill off a specialized set of neurons in the hypothalamus- a basal part of the brain that sits just over the brain stem. This region normally has ~ 50,000 neurons that secrete orexin (which comes in two kinds as well, 1 and 2), and project to areas all over the brain, especially basal areas like the basal forebrain and amygdala, to regulate not just sleep but feeding, mood, reward, memory, and learning. Like any hormone receptor, the orexin receptors can be approached in two ways- by turning them on (agonist) or by turning them off (antagonist). Antagonist drugs were developed which turn off both orexin receptors, and thus promote sleep. The first was named suvorexant, using the "orex" and "ant" lexical elements to mark its functions, which is now standard for generic drug names.
This drug is moderately effective, and is a true sleep enhancer, promoting falling to sleep, restful sleep, and length of sleep, unlike some other sleep aids. Suvorexant antagonizes both receptors, but the researchers knew that only the deletion of OX2R, not OX1R, (in dogs, mice, and other animals), generates narcolepsy, so they developed a drug more specific to OX2R only. But the result was that it was less effective. It turned out that binding and turning off OX1R was helpful to sleep promotion, and there were no particularly bad side effects from binding both receptors, despite the wide ranging activities they appear to have. So while the trial of Merck's MK-1064 was successful, it was not better than their exising two-receptor drug, so its development was shelved. And we learned something intriguing about this system. While all animals have some kind of orexin, only mammals have the second orexin family member and receptor, suggesting that some interesting, but not complete, bifurcation happened in the functions of this system in evolution.
What got me interested in this topic was a brief article from yet another drug company, Takeda, which was testing an agonist against the orexin receptors in an effort to treat narcolepsy. They created TAK-994, which binds to OX2R specifically, and showed a lot of promise in animal trials. It is a pill form, orally taken drug, in contrast to the existing treatment, danavorexton, which must be injected. In the human trial, it was remarkably effective, virtually eliminating cataleptic / narcoleptic episodes. But there was a problem- it caused enough liver toxicity that the trial was stopped and the drug shelved. Presumably, this company will try again, making variants of this compound that retain affinity and activity but not the toxicity.
This brings up an underappreciated peril in drug design- where drugs end up. Drugs don't just go into our systems, hopefully slipping through the incredibly difficult gauntlet of our digestive system. But they all need to go somewhere after they have done their jobs, as well. Some drugs are hydrophilic enough, and generally inert enough, that they partition into the urine by dilution and don't have any further metabolic events. Most, however, are recognized by our internal detoxification systems as foreign, (that is, hydrophobic, but not recognizable as fats/lipids that are usual nutrients), and are derivatized by liver enzymes and sent out in the bile.
 |
| Structure of TAK-994, which treats narcolepsy, but at the cost of liver dysfunction. |
But then what? Evolution has met most of the toxic substances we meet with in nature with appropriate enzymes and routes out of the body. But these novel compounds we are making with modern chemistry are something else altogether. Some drugs are turned on by this process, waiting till they get to the liver to attain their active form. Others, apparently such as this one, are made into toxic compounds (as yet unknown) by this process, such that the liver is damaged. That is why animal studies and safety trials are so important. This drug binds to its target receptor, and does what it is supposed to do, but that isn't enough to be a good drug.
New methods to unravel the code of transcriptional regulators.
When we deciphered the human genome, we came up with three billion letters of its linear code- nice and tidy. But that is not how it is read inside our cells. Sure, it is replicated linearly, but the DNA polymerases don't care about the sequence- they are not "reading" the book, they are merely copying machines trying to get it to the next generation with as few errors as possible. The book is read in an entirely different way, by a herd of proteins that recognize specific sequences of the DNA- the transcription regulators (also commonly called transcription factors [TF], in the classic scientific sense of some "factor" that one is looking for). These regulators- and there are, by one recent estimate, 1,639 of them encoded in the human genome- constitute an enormously complex network of proteins and RNAs that regulate each other, and regulate "downstream" genes that encode everything else in the cell. They are made in various proportions to specify each cell type, to conduct every step in development, and to respond to every eventuality that evolution has met and mastered over the eons.
 |
| Loops occur in the DNA between site of regulator binding, in order to turn genes on (enhancer, E, and transcription regulator/factor, TF). |
Anyhow, researchers naturally have the question- what is the regulatory landscape of a given gene under some conditions of interest, or of an entire genome? What regulators bind, and which ones are most important? Can we understand, given our technical means, what is going on in a cell from our knowledge of transcription regulators? Can we read the genome like the cell itself does? Well the answer to that is, obviously no and not yet. But there are some remarkable technical capabilities. For example, for any given regulator, scientists can determine where it binds all over the genome in any given cell, by chemical crosslinking methods. The prediction of binding sites for all known regulators has been a long-standing hobby as well, though given the sparseness of this code and the lability of the proteins/sites, one that gives only statistical, which is to say approximate, results. Also, scientists can determine across whole genomes where genes are "open" and active, vs where they are closed. Chromatin (DNA bound with histones in the nucleus) tends to be closed up on repressed and inactive genes, while transcription regulators start their work by opening chromatin to make it accessible to other regulators, on active genes.
This last method offers the prospect of truly global analysis, and was the focus of a recent paper. The idea was to merge a detailed library predicted binding sites for all known regulators all over the genome, with experimental mapping of open chromatin regions in a particular cell or tissue of interest. And then combine all that with existing knowledge about what each of the target genes near the predicted binding sites do. The researchers clustered the putative regulators binding across all open regions by this functional gene annotation to come up with statistically over-represented transcription regulators and functions. This is part of a movement across bioinformatics to fold in more sources of data to improve predictions when individual methods each produce sketchy, unsatisfying results.
In this case, mapping open chromatin by itself is not very helpful, but becomes much more helpful when combined with assessments of which genes these open regions are close to, and what those genes do. This kind of analysis can quickly determine whether you are looking at an immune cell or a neuron, as the open chromatin is a snapshot of all the active genes at a particular moment. In this recent work, the analysis was extended to say that if some regulators are consistently bound near genes participating in some key cellular function, then we can surmise that that regulator may be causal for that cell type, or at least part of the program specific to that cell. The point for these researchers is that this multi-source analysis performs better in finding cell-type specific, and function-specific, regulators than is the more common approach of just adding up the prevalence of regulators occupying open chromatin all over a given genome, regardless of the local gene functions. That kind of approach tends to yield common regulators, rather than cell-type specific ones.
To validate, they do rather half-hearted comparisons with other pre-existing techniques, without blinding, and with validation of only their own results. So it is hardly a fair comparison. They look at the condition systemic lupus (SLE), and find different predictions coming from their current technique (called WhichTF) vs one prior method (MEME-ChIP). MEME-ChIP just finds predicted regulator binding sites for genomic regions (i.e. open chromatin regions) given by the experimenter, and will do a statistical analysis for prevalence, regardless of the functions of either the regulator or the genes it binds to. So you get absolute prevalence of each regulator in open (active) regions vs the genome as a whole.
 |
| Different regulators are identified from the same data by different statistical methods. But both sets are relevant. |
What to make of these results? The MEME-ChIP method finds regulators like SP1, SP2, SP4, and ZFX/Y. SP1 et al. are very common regulators, but that doesn't mean they are unimportant, or not involved in disease processes. SP1 has been observed as likely to be involved in autoimmune encephalitis in mice, a model of multiple sclerosis, and naturally not so far from lupus in pathology. ZFX is also a prominent regulator in the progenitor cells of the immune system. So while these authors think little of the competing methods, those methods seem to do a very good job of identifying significant regulators, as do their own methods.
There is another problem with the author's WhatTF method, which is that gene annotation is in its infancy. Users are unlikely to find new functions using existing annotations. Many genes have no known function yet, and new functions are being found all the time for those already assigned functions. So if one's goal is classification of a cell or of transcription regulators according to existing schemes, this method is fine. But if one has a research goal to find new cell types, or new processes, this method will channel you into existing ones instead.
This kind of statistical refinement is unlikely to give us what we seek in any case- a strong predictive model of how the human genome is read and activatated by the herd of gene regulators. For that, we will need new methods for specific interaction detection, with a better appreciation for complexes between different regulators, (which will be afforded by the new AI-driven structural techniques), and more appreciation for the many other operators on chromatin, like the various histone modifying enzymes that generate another whole code of locks and keys that do the detailed regulation of chromatin accessibility. Reading the genome is likely to be a somewhat stochastic process, but we have not yet arrived at the right level of detail, or the right statistics, to do it justice.
China, its communist party, and our free speech. Review of America 2nd, by Isaac Stone Fish.
Why are there always spoilers on the international scene? Some country is always unhappy with the way things are, and does its best to shake up the system. That shaking can be as detrimental to itself as to any other nation, but greed and ambition are always with us. After the Cold War, Russia descended into criminal chaos, with little real help from the West, and, once it had finally pulled itself together, turned around with veangence on its mind to refashion its imperial / security sphere. Russia could have been a nice country, tied into the European cultural and defense system. But no, the nostalgia for satellites and empire were just too strong. Putin spent a decade and more pulling Ukraine into the Russian orbit, only to be finally rebuffed in a people-powered revolution. Now he is trying to do it the hard way, and will take and keep whatever he can grab, little though that may be.
All that is peanuts compared with the game brewing between us and China. While Russia is playing for its neighborhood, the stakes in this next game are the whole world. That is, who runs the "international system", such as it is, and who plays the dominant role over the next century. The US has spent the last couple of decades trying to pull China into the existing trade and security system, in hopes that it would change into a "nice" country, aligning with the US, Europe and our developed allies all over the world in a quest for peace and lawful security. That has not happened. Even less so than with Russia, which at least has a long strand of pro-European sentiment, China learned its lessons from the Russian debacle, and its own Tienanmen square brush with democracy, and resolutely stayed in the Leninist camp- of absolute and unapologetic party power. It was hardly even tempted by European values.
In his book "America 2nd", Isaac Fish is eloquent about how deep China's resentments vs the West go. China suffered a century or more of humiliating vassalage over the 19th century, mired in poverty, opium, and weakness vs colonial powers. Then it suffered again at the hands of imperial Japan, and then several decades on its own account under Mao enduring the Western ideology of Marxism-Leninism. Maybe the last part is projected on the West as well, I am not sure. But China has plenty of ground to make up, and the last few decades of managed capitalism have been, as all can see, completely transformative.
China has already attained number one status in pollution, in population, (though later overtaken by India), and will soon attain that status in GDP. China is busy projecting its power and values via foreign aid, "Wolf Warrior" diplomacy, their takeover of the South China sea, propaganda, intelligence, and hard-ball economic warfare. The question Fish asks is- why are we supporting this policy and the propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)?
Recall the quaint old days of "linkage", when the US considered using some points of leverage with Russia to influence Soviet policies we didn't like? China has no such qualms. Everything is linked, and particularly, China's great economic engine is linked with CCP propaganda. US companies that say anything the CCP does not like lose business and IP. The NBA went through a humiliating episode when Darryl Morey of the Houston Rockets criticized CCP repression in Hong Kong. The CCP promptly cancelled NBA air time and business in China, until the NBA comprehensively groveled back into its good graces, and has ever since kept its mouth shut. Black lives may matter, but Tibetan lives, Uyghur lives, Hong Kong lives... not so much, when a totalitarian power waves its big stick.
 |
| China can make its own jingoistic media as well. This is Wolf Warrior 2, whose tag line runs: "Anyone who offends China, no matter how remote, must be exterminated." |
Far more damaging is the capitulation of Hollywood. After dabbling with tailoring films for the Chinese market, it turned out that it was easier, and not at all influenced by CCP pressure to project a positive world wide image, for Hollywood studios to get fully on board with CCP censorship for all releases, not portraying China or Chinese in a negative way. So, after a brief and now thoroughly repressed few years of agitation on behalf of Tibet a couple of decades ago, the film industry, one of the premiere arms of American soft power, has been turned and cowed, into a lapdog of the CCP. Not a peep about Tibet any more, indeed DreamWorks brought out a thoroughly whitewashed Tibet-adjacent feature in 2019 that suggests everything there is perfectly fine, thanks to Han characters who protect the region.
Capitulation has been the rule across the business world, as each business faces the brutal choice of playing with the CCP, or being barred from Chinese markets, and even hobbled in other ways as China gains power abroad. But this has not been enough. China has been busily corrupting the US government itself, masterfully using former officials to press its case for Western acquiescence. Henry Kissinger is the pioneer in this effort, but former presidents and many other officials have spared no effort in setting up post-career "consultancies" that assiduously advise any and all comers that resistance is futile- China will rule the world and we must accommodate ourselves to that fact.
"There are plenty of antagonists in this story, some Chinese, some not. For those upset with Beijing's influence in America, understand this: by helping normalize corruption among our former diplomats and warping American perception of China over the last four decades, Henry Kissinger has done more harm to American interests than every ethnically Chinese businessman, hacker, spy, whether they hold American or Chinese citizenship."
It is ironic, with all the current complaints about cancel culture, free speech for fascists, woke restrictions, etc. that we are actually being policed in our speech by our geopolitical opponent, China, and do not seem to think anything amiss about that.
The ancient Art of War recommends winning by shaping the battlefield and the minds of the opponents- whereby not a shot needs to be fired. Fish emphasises the United Front operations of the CCP and its propaganda arms, which seek influence in many ways, not just media. The seduction of foreign officials and fixers comes under this area of government work, for instance, as does the pressuring of speech and behavior by foreign corporations. Everything is linked, as is proper under a totalitarian system, and every oar pulls in the same direction of keeping the CCP in power and gaining influence across the world.
The CCP has a great deal to answer for, both historically, and in its brutal approach to its current rule, even given its huge successes in economic growth and allowing the modernization of China. A democratic and free China would look very different, and could flourish just as well. We should not be taken in by the propaganda of identity between the CCP and China, or the permanence of CCP rule. We need to be able to think and speak freely, and facilitate the freedom of others. And this should start with Taiwan, whose freedom is in the crosshairs of the CCP. We should not acquiesce to the narrative that Taiwan must/will be assimilated into China, or that it is not, in fact, an independent nation with every right to self-determination. The CCP's track record of cultural genocide in Tibet, actual concentration camps and genocide in Xinjiang, and the decapitation of Hong Kong shows clearly enough what would be in store for Taiwan, and for the rest of us, were China to gain even more leverage.
What happened in genomes of mammals who lost their hair?
Hair is characteristic of mammals, and forms part of our advanced sensor suite that so effectively replaces the need for armor, shells, and the like. We can have very soft skin, and use hair for warmth, protection, sensing, display, nesting, and other things. But for some mammals like whales and dolphins, hair became a nuisance and has almost wholly been shed. Why it happened is pretty clear, both functionally and by the theory of natural selection. But figuring out how it happened requires delving into the respective genomes of these animals, including us- who, while hardly hairless, have much less than the common mammal. And the genomes tell an interesting story about how evolution works.
The premise of a recent study that tackled this issue (review) is that convergent evolution, that is the development of the same trait in distinct lineages, usually happens in similar ways, mutating the same genes that are key ingredients or regulators for that trait. So, given the many genomes that have now been sequenced across all the mammals, they asked whether a bunch of hairless mammals share some genetic mechanisms behind hairlessness. While there are several sudden appearances of hairlessness in dog breeds and mice, traceable to specific mutations/genes, the authors were not really interested in the genetics of hair itself, but how during actual evolution, hairlessness came about.
 |
| An example of a large-scale map of syntenic regions that match between human and mouse genomes, by chromosome. Recombination and shuffling between regions and chromosomes happens frequently over long periods of time, in addition to smaller-scale mutations, making it challenging to do this mapping, which is a first step to analyses like those discussed here. |
 |
| A rough rundown of the anatomical location of expression of genes which had significant evolutionary speedups in hairless species. The Y axis is a measure of enrichment of that location of expression vs a null hypothesis of expression everywhere, for the set of 27 accelerated genes. Skin and hair expression are clearly favored by genes found in this analysis. |
In the following, I give their ranked top genes for evolutionary rate acceleration, divided by those changing in their coding regions, and those changing most in nearby non-coding regions.
== Coding sequence acceleration ==
== Noncoding sequence acceleration ==
So a theme is emerging here, which is that some of the central players in hair development and hair structure received extra mutations in their coding sequences. Keratins, which make up hair, are an obvious case. The other altered genes have more obscure connections, but it is evident that FGF11 plays some important role in hair development, analogous to its relatives that are all local signaling molecules that instruct cell type and proliferation.
 |
| Genes found in this study, spread over a non-coding acceleration vs coding region acceleration in their mutation (evolution) rate. In orange are all the keratin genes, some of which have high rates in their coding sequences, but pretty much all of which have high rates in nearby non-coding DNA. In blue and red are other genes with nearby non-coding rate acceleration, with ones known to participate in hair functions marked in red. |
On the other hand, regulators of other genes involved in hair development- a series of transcription regulators and micro-RNAs- were altered in their own regulation, which happens in non-coding areas of genes, but not in their coding sequences. This is because these regulators have many other roles, which would be disrupted by changing their coding sequences. Their special sauce lies in where and when they are expressed, which then leads to the complex combinatorial interactions they have with batteries of other regulators converging at their target genes. A great deal of evolution consists of twiddling with dials, rather than hammering on the machinery, or yanking it out.
So, over the tens of millions of years that mammals have been around, the loss of hair appears to come down to tweeks over many different genes, some of which are thrown out entirely (becoming pseudogenes), others of which are disabled in different ways in their protein sequences (keratins, FGF11), and others that are merely relocated in their expression, so that while most of their roles are untouched, their role in hair development is toned down or eliminated. The genome is an orchestra with a lot of players, whose contributions to the whole is sometimes loud and clear (keratin), but more often indirect and obscure, rewarding deeper forms of music appreciation.
The many ways we can tell humans have overrun the planet.
I was reading a slight book on the history of my county, built around photos from our local historical society. What struck me was how bucolic it used to be, more agrarian and slow paced, yet at the same time socially vibrant. A scarcity of people makes everyone more positive about meeting and being with other people. Now the region is much more built-up, with more amenities, but less open space and seemingly less social mixing. All this got me thinking about the social indices of overpopulation.
There are many ways to evaluate human overpopulation. Famine and starvation is perhaps the simplest, a specter that was thought to be imminent in the 1970's, with "The Population Bomb". Lately we have become aware of more subtle problems that the planet has due to our numbers, like pervasive plastic pollution, deranged nitrogen and other chemical cycles, and climate heating. There has been a constant descent down ladders of resource quality, from the mastodons that were hunted out thousands of years ago, then fisheries destroyed, then ranges overgrazed, to the point that we are making hamburgers out of peas and soy beans now. Minerals follow the same course, as we go farther afield to exploit poorer ores of the critical elements like copper, aluminum, rare earth elements, helium, etc.
Sustainability is not just a word or a woke mantra. It is a specter that hangs over our future. Will humans be able to exist at our current technological level in a few hundred years? A thousand? Ten thousand? There is no way that will be possible with our current practices. So those practices unquestionably have to change.
But apart from the resource constraints that overpopulation presents, I have been struck by the sociological factors that point in the same direction, and are spontaneous responses to what is evident in the environment. In my community and the state of California, there is a vocal debate about housing. Localities have settled into a comfortable stasis, where no new housing is zoned for, existing housing values go up, and existing residents are happy. But the population of the state continues to go up, housing becomes increasingly unaffordable, and the homeless lie all over the streets and parks. There seems to be a psychological state where most current residents see the current situation as sufficiently dense- they are not interested in more growth, (We don't want to become LA!). They instinctively sense that we have collectively reached some kind of limit, given our technological setting and psychology.
Declining birth rates across the developed world point in the same direction. Perhaps the expense of raising a child into the current lifestyle is too high, but there may be something more basic going on. Likewise the broad acceptance of gay / LGBTQ lives, where previously the emphasis was on "natural" and fertile growth of the human population, without any consciousness of limits. People seem less social, less likely to go out from their cocoons and streaming pods. Political divisiveness may also be traceable to this sociological turning point, since if growth is off the table, the pie is static, and political and economic competition is increasingly zero-sum instead of collective and growth-oriented. Public works fall into this trap as well, with public agencies increasingly sclerotic, unable to plow through conflicting entrenched interests, and unable to grow, or even maintain, our infrastructure. One could invoke a general anti-immigrant sentiment as another sign, although anti-immigrant campaigns have featured periodically throughout US history, usually mixed, as now, with racial selectivity and animus.
We should be proud of the many great things that this period of prosperity has allowed us to accomplish. But we should grieve, as well, for the costs incurred- the vast environmental degradation which at the current pace is accelerating and compounding through many forms. Humans are not going to go extinct from these self-induced crises, but we will have to face up to the absolute necessity of sustainability over the long term, or else "the environment" will do so for us, by reducing our populations to more sustainable levels.
Why do we have, and want, inflation?
I recently watched some of a documentary- "The Monopoly of Violence"- an attack on the state from a libertarian perspective. It is the kind of thing Elon Musk and fellow Ayn Randians love to go on about- how jackbooted and totalitarian the evil state is, over the little people and wonderful entrepreneurs of our sadly oppressed Western countries. How compulsory taxation, schooling, and legal responsibility is an affront to the natural rights of man. Maybe it is better somewhere else less governed, like maybe Haiti, or Mars! The absurdity of it is grating, as they rant from comfortable chairs, protected by the innumerable services of the state.
One such service is management of the monetary system. Back in the wonderful days of unregulated money, anyone could found a bank, and any bank could issue money. Sounds nuts, right? Well it was nuts, and led to numerous booms and busts in the 1800's, and countless smaller bank failures, lost fortunes, swindles, etc. Early Mormon history gives us just one small example, where Joseph Smith set up the Kirtland Bank on a fraudulent basis, issued an ocean of notes, and collapsed less than a year after founding. As the old saying has it, man is wolf to man. And anarchy, while sometimes conducive to self-organization and initiative, is more often the province of con men, swindlers, gangs- criminals of all kinds.
The recent inflation scare brought the topic of inflation front and center in the news again, after a couple of decades in remission. The Fed has a target of two percent, which seems arbitrary. Why not something else? Why not zero? If you read lots of history or Victorian novels, it becomes apparent that this idea of having, even wanting, ongoing inflation, is a modern idea. Economies used to run on a gold standard, on the pound sterling, or the Roman denarius, which were stable in value (barring debasements in the coinage) for centuries. What happened?
Modern economics happened, along with heightened trust in government institutions such as the Federal Reserve. Where we once relied on the perceived and relatively constant value of rare minerals like gold and silver for money, we have spent the last century getting off that standard and graduating to a standard simply of trust in collective insitutions to issue, manage, and account for .. notional (fiat) money such as the dollar. With that transition, we now have far more flexible ways to manage the value of this money, both preventing large swings during crises, (such as crises of balance of payment, or lack of gold mines, or episodic depressions in the business cycle), and seeking that inflation rate mentioned at the top.
John Maynard Keynes played a large role in this change, explaining why the gold standard was a barbaric relic, and that the central banks failed to mentally leave the gold standard world behind in their mismanagement of the Great Depression. He helped design the post-war Bretton Woods arrangement of exchange rates, which gradually helped wean the world off the gold standard fully, to where we are today, with fully floating exchange rates and fully fiat government issued currencies, unbacked by crystals, metals, coconuts, or anything else.
 |
| Lots of inflation is, naturally, bad. |
But why do these issuers seek inflation? Under mismanagement, inflation can easily run rampant, as the government creates money for itself to spend, beyond the economy's capacity to absorb, and beyond what its taxation policies bring back in. It is exceedingly tempting, but in the US, the citizenry and media are quite negatively inclined towards inflation, limiting our government's profligacy in that direction. But low inflation, that is a different story entirely. The Fed's two percent target is founded on several beneficial consequences:
So, while it is weird to live in a world where the value of money goes continually down and the monetary value of things continually goes up, there are positive aspects to it. At two percent, values double every 35 years and go up ten-fold every 115 years. So someday, the dollar will either become a notional, almost valueless currency, or we will want to rebase it by a couple of orders of magnitude. At any rate, monetary consistency is the gift that the state brings us, deploying its many powers to keep the monetary system stable, and thus a critical support for a flourishing society where people do not have to think too much about fluctuations in the value of their money.
Let's help Haiti, and try to do nation building right this time.
We have a desperate situation on our doorstep, in Haiti. Governance has broken down, and anarchy is rampant, with the usual sad story of gangs, kidnapping, killing, looting, and mayhem. While the US has no formal obligation to help, and we have a long history of trying to help (as well as harm) Haiti, it is hard to stand idly by. The US has a frought history with "nation-building". We started in the nation-destroying business, laying waste to one Native American nation after another. Then we had a turn at destroying our own nation in the Civil War. After that came the quasi-imperial ambitions in the Philippines, the United Fruit Empire of Central America, including Panama and the Canal. The high point was our reconstruction of both German and Japanese societies after the second world war, though these societies were definitely not reduced to anarchy, only to temporary leaderless-ness and penury after the defeats of their somewhat abberrant fascist governments. Our more recent attempts to run countries like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have been thoroughgoing disasters, ending in various degrees of embarrassment. Why ask for more?
Notable US activities in Haiti:
One reason for all this failure is that our nation-building work has never been very conscious. We were faced with weak allies or vanquished enemies, and wanted little more than to have military access for our jihad du jur, and to get out as soon as possible. The social and the long-term was, perhaps with the exception of the post-WW2 reconstructions, always secondary to military objectives. But as we learn, the military is always ultimately political and social as well. As a super-power, we have a naturally narcissistic mind-set, caring little about the dynamics of other countries and having little patience with their deep histories and un-American ways. This has been particularly evident in our building of other nation's militaries, those in Vietnam and Afghanistan being made in our image and promptly failing in our absence.
But another thing that has been evident through all these adventures is that nation-building is very, very important. Our own revolutionary experiment fed us a civic myth of tremendous power and durability. Our many failures, bottoming out with Donald Rumsfeld's scorn of nation-building in Iraq as it melted down in flaming anarchy, should have taught us by now that attending to nation-building is a top priority in any military relationship, and in most international relationships generally. There is no military effectiveness without a national moral and civic ethos behind it.
That leads to the question of whether any nation can "nation-build" for others. Like teenage development, nations develop typically in opposition to others, via revolutions, wars, conquest. "Help" is rarely relevant, and mostly harmful. But hope springs eternal, and sometimes desperate situations call out for a special effort.
What is the situation in Haiti? I am far from an expert, but it is mostly one of collapse of institutions (never competent to start with), amid repeated natural disasters, (indeed, eco-cide on a large scale), huge inequality and corruption, extreme poverty- even starvation, and a custom of right-wing military coups and meddling. We can not expect democracy to be the immediate solution, given the depth and long history of the dysfunction. Some kind of stabilization and gradual re-introduction of governance and civic society needs to be envisioned.
 |
| Gang-based governance is not working well in Haiti. |
I would envision a high level commission, of mixed composisiton, with people like Barack Obama, leading Haitians from various sectors, and knowledgeable Biden administration officials, dedicated to going to Haiti and spending a half year or year doing a bottom to top assessment of needs and prospects for reform, principally in government and the economy. It might be a bit reminiscent of the peace process in Northern Ireland that we participated in. The group would issue a recommendation / plan, covering constitutional changes, civic development, security, educational development, and economic development. They also might recommend some sort of conservatorship over higher levels of the government, run through the UN, or the US itself, including peace-keepers, hopefully not carrying cholera, or other temporary security help. At this point, some pressure might have to be brought to bear to force some of the changes and personnel into implementation.
Democracy can't be the first order of business, as conditions and civic culture are so dire. So perhaps a program of progressive democratic development, from local institutions at the start, to progressively higher level elections and political development, could be envisioned, as security and civic conditions improve. A "foster" system might be a bit like the Chinese communist system, where democracy is not front and center(!), but competence is, and the higher levels spend a lot of time figuring out who is effective at lower levels of governance, including aspects such as managerial competence, lack of corruption, people skills, ability to work in an established legal system, economic vision, among much else.
In Haiti, economic reconstruction would not be based on huge influxes of outside aid, but a be concerted effort, as part of the more general governance project, to determine and build the infrastructure for a sustainable indiginous economic basis, perhaps in light industry and agriculture- something like the relationship the US has with Mexico, minus the drugs and immigration. Subsistence agriculture is very popular in Haiti, and presents a fundamental choice for the nation. While the independence and simplicity it represents are understandably attractive, (indeed, consonant with a lot of red state rhetoric from the US), subsistence agriculture can not support an advanced economy. It can not support imports that are obviously desired, and may not even support Haiti's current population with the best security and governance. But whatever the economic choices Haiti makes, better governance would improve its people's conditions and happiness.
One long-term focus would be education. Education in Haiti is run almost entirely on a private basis, at best, via international NGOs. That would not change very soon, but clearly universal, compulsory, and free education is important for improving Haiti's future. General literacy is hardly above 50%. Education stands at the root of Haiti's problems- its lack of economic development as much as its tragic governance. There are many other issues, such as the proliferation of NGOs with private agendas and lack of cooperation with the government, and the way food aid from the US has destroyed native agriculture. Governance is not the only issue, in this extremely poor, ill-educated, and traumatized country, but it is a function that must be fixed if any other aspect of the society is to progress.
Lastly, there is the perennial problem of whom to trust. Foreigners coming into a country, however good-willed, do more harm than good if they do not have good information. Our occupation of Afghanistan was notorious for repeatedly killing the wrong people, because we got information from those who had private grudges or competing interests. Without adopting a state of surveillance and/or terror, how are we to sift wheat from chaff? This is where expertise comes into play, and why sending the military in to run things tends to go haywire, with illusions of power. So we need people who know the language, and something about Haiti. There are a lot of emigre Haitians in the US who could be helpful in that regard.
If we took such a project seriously as a long-term and cooperative venture, we could do a great deal of good in Haiti, which would be positive not only for Haiti, but for the US and our wider interests. Our relations throughout the hemisphere have been strained for decades, ridden with excessive militarism, condescention, colonialism, and the US-sponsored spread of drugs, gangs, and guns. We have a lot to answer for, and should make a greater effort to bring positive change to our friends in this hemisphere.
