Andy Kessler

WSJ: Cancer Screening Leaps Forward

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cancer-screening-leaps-forward-11593973586

So often the future shows up when you’re looking for something else. In 2013, DNA sequencing company Illumina bought Verinata Health and began offering noninvasive prenatal testing. Using a pregnant woman’s blood, a now-$500 DNA test can spot Down syndrome and other chromosomal conditions. Since then, the use of very invasive needle-to-the-womb amniocentesis testing has dropped.

But that’s not the story here. Of the first 100,000 women tested, 10 (or 0.01%) had unusual chromosome patterns. The fetus was fine, but in each case, the mother had cancer of differing types. That was worth investigating—600,000 die from cancer in the U.S. each year—but large expensive clinical trials would be required.

So Illumina spun out a new company named Grail in Menlo Park, Calif., to do what’s known as Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas studies. Running DNA sequencing on regular blood samples, Grail generates hundreds of gigabytes of data per person—the well-known A-T-G-C nucleotides, but also the “methylation status,” or whether a particular DNA site’s function is turned on or off (technically, whether or not it represses gene transcription).

Most popular DNA screenings for cancer risk test only a single gene site, like BRCA1. But Grail’s chief medical officer Josh Ofman tells me, “cancer may show up as thousands of methylation changes, a much richer signal to teach machine learning algorithms to find cancer” vs. a single site. “There are 30 million methylation sites in the entire human genome on 100,000 DNA fragments. Grail looks at a million of them.” It takes industrial-grade artificial intelligence to find patterns in all this data, something a human eye would never see.

Mind you, this is not a consumer 23andMe test of your genome that says you might have, say, a 68% chance of getting cancer. Grail is detecting the signature of actual cancer cells in your blood. According to validation data published in the Annals of Oncology, the test can find 50 different types, more than half of all known cancers.

And it can find cancer well before symptoms show up, in Stage I or sooner, when therapies are cheap and effective.

Read the rest here.

WSJ: How to Slay a Tech Giant (Apple)

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-slay-a-tech-giant-apple-11593375647

When Apple announced last week that it will soon replace Intel processors with its own, I had a flashback to 1993. Morgan Stanley’s technology investment banker Frank Quattrone called me in New York: “John Sculley”—CEO of Apple—“wants to meet with you Friday,” he said. It was Thursday morning. “About what?” I asked. “I don’t know, do your virtual thing.” I booked the 9 p.m. to San Francisco and the redeye home.

Meanwhile, I was on the phone all day with the banking team to help create “the book.” No investment banker worth his salt shows up without a spiral-bound pitch book put together by lowly associates pulling all-nighters, with strategy ideas and suggested transactions (investment bankers’ payday!) to solve the company’s future problems.

Back then I was intrigued by companies organized in horizontal layers attacking vertical behemoths. IBM was a vertical giant and did everything from soup to nuts: chips, hardware, operating system, software, applications, services. They had 50% of the computer industry’s revenue but 90% of its profits. They used FUD—fear, uncertainty and doubt—to freeze out competitors.

But IBM was vulnerable. A loose horizontal confederation threatened its power: Intel processors, Microsoft’s operating system, Western Digital hard drives and Compaq hardware, along with Lotus, Adobe and Microsoft applications, added up to a “Virtual IBM” and eventually toppled the giant. The same thing happened in the late 1990s with AT&T. A horizontal internet of network equipment, browsers and websites created a Virtual AT&T and toppled the vertically integrated telecom.

The team met with Mr. Sculley, his chief financial officer and general counsel, and I got to make the pitch. I recently dug up my dusty copy of that pitch book to remember what I said. Apple had “superior software and ergonomic hardware design” but needed to “focus on mobility as a natural offspring of smaller form-factor computing.” Not bad, in hindsight, though a decade early.

But Apple’s stock, at 14 times earnings, was valued like commodity PC maker Compaq.

Read the rest here.

WSJ: A War of Meaningless Words

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-war-of-meaningless-words-11592757588

Truth or consequences? “When I use a word,” says Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” In other words, anything he wants it to mean. Prescient. Today words are abused and truth has become so debased that no one believes anything anymore.

It started off Art Linkletter-like: Politicians say the darnedest things. You know—the definition of “is,” uranium yellowcake, if you like your doctor, the size of inauguration crowds. Facebook and Twitter now have truth squads trying to discern truths from fakes. Good luck with that. The Post-Truth Era not only has arrived; in three short months, we’ve descended into the depths of dishonesty dysfunction.

Even numbers. Now 2.2 million = 150,000? Imperial College London epidemiologist Neil Ferguson helped force much of the world into lockdowns with his forecast of 2.2 million U.S. deaths. He assumed 268 million of Americans, or 81%, would be infected. So far it’s 2.3 million. As Bob Uecker would say, “Juuust a bit outside.” Mr. Ferguson then put the hip in hypocritical, having his married girlfriend break the stay-at-home order he inspired.

The White House was also math-challenged. Its “15 Days to Slow the Spread” quickly became 30. Which is it? We flattened the curve, and a quarter of the economy. No matter, we’re now on day 90, quarantine crazy and hankering for haircuts.

The World Health Organization declared in March that you don’t need to wear masks, probably because of the world-wide shortage. California now requires them, even outside. Again, which is it? Whacked in the head so many times with untruths, you stop believing anyone.

OK, those were emergency conditions, where anyone could make mistakes. Except, except…

Read the rest here.

WSJ: A Boy and His Flag (Day)

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-boy-and-his-flag-11592153447

June 14 is Flag Day. It happens to be my favorite holiday, perhaps tied with food-and-football-fest Thanksgiving. I’m not rah-rah patriotic—I have as much disdain for those who hide behind the flag as those who trash it—but Flag Day is personal for me. I grew up in central New Jersey, in the township of Bridgewater, some 10 miles up the Raritan River from New Brunswick. I’d leave for school each morning and before turning right to the bus stop, I’d look left, up the hill into a clearing with a flagpole, where a flag flew day and night.

In 1777, Gen. William Howe and 18,000 British troops were occupying New Brunswick. George Washington had 8,000 troops encamped in the Watchung Mountains, uphill from my house, with a commanding view to keep an eye on Howe and stop his march to Philadelphia, the nation’s de facto capital. On June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress adopted the 13-star flag. The Middlebrook encampment, toward which I looked reflexively every morning, was where the Betsy Ross flag flew for the first time.

A sign of the times, the Middlebrook encampment of my youth was in disrepair: a couple of old cannons, lots of wrappers and broken beer bottles, and the flagpole. Until recent decades, it was one of only a few places allowed to fly the flag 24 hours a day.

Today you can have the Stars and Stripes on your underwear and sneakers—though Betsy Ross got bounced off Nike’s Air Max 1 USAs. Canceled. Scrubbed. Too bad. I always think of the flag as a banner of opportunity, for everyone. “America is the land of opportunity,” said Elon Musk, the immigrant founder of Tesla and SpaceX, before last month’s successful space launch. “There is no other country where I could have done this.” Heck, freedom-loving John Hancock was an entrepreneur (OK, smuggler) who hated paying taxes. To me, the flag means only one thing: If you respect freedom enough, anything is possible.

We lived on the right side of the railroad tracks but on the down slope of our town’s economic divide. Generally, doctors, lawyers and businessmen lived uphill, while blue-collar and service workers lived below the foothills, like us. Inequality? Nobody cared. My dad was an engineer, which was less valued back then, and my mom worked with learning-disabled children. But they made enough to send their kids to college.

Read the rest here.

WSJ: Party Like It’s 1983 - The Reagan Playbook

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/party-like-its-1983-11591560625

“In the grip of the world-wide recession, we must all stick to anti-inflationary, high-productivity policies that adapt new technology, retrain workers, and increase efficiency.” Who said that? Donald Trump? Angela Merkel? Emmanuel Macron? Nope, that was Ronald Reagan in May 1983, speaking on the eve of the Williamsburg Economic Summit of Industrialized Nations.

Now, the off-again, on-again Group of Seven meeting scheduled for June is off until September at the earliest. Too bad. It’s needed more than ever. I spoke with Larry Kudlow, director of the White House National Economic Council and the so-called Sherpa of the meeting’s agenda, and asked what his pitch will be. “It’s the Reagan playbook,” he says. “In some sense, it’s very easy. The same principles apply. You want to reduce tax rates, generate incentives, reignite the animal spirits, and deregulate to remove business obstacles.”

Without Reagan’s principles, the capital investment and innovation since 1983 might still have happened, just more slowly. We’d be getting that original iPhone right about now, delaying improvements in everyone’s living standards. Wait, no Uber?

More than 42 million Americans have filed jobless claims since mid-March, and around 21 million are now unemployed. We need jobs, badly. After the first wave of rehiring, Mr. Kudlow insists, “you must reignite growth—you must. Your car battery is dead because you haven’t used it in three months, so you have to pull out the jumper cables and reignite the battery, which is what we are trying to do with the economy.”

In 1983, the U.S. economy had just gone through the ravages of Paul Volcker’s inflation-slaying recessions. Now it’s zero inflation and lockdowns. Do we need another giant stimulus package? Mr. Kudlow thinks not: “The first tranche was rescue, cash, liquidity, survival. Now we’re transitioning through the reopening, and the third leg has got to be growth incentives. That’s been my mantra internally, and we’re going to press that at the G-7.” He prefers a payroll-tax holiday and capital-gains exclusions for investments through the end of the year.

Read the rest here.

WSJ: Give Online Learning an Upgrade

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/give-online-learning-an-upgrade-11590954189

School’s out for summer. School’s out forever? A lot of parents are figuring out that remote learning, forced on us by school closings, is mostly the same old, same old—teachers droning on to students, except online. Not much has changed in education since the Little Rascals’ Miss Crabtree’s one-room class in 1930.

And it’s broken. Even before Covid, more than half of incoming students at community colleges required remedial math or English courses. As former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told me, “Something’s wrong when you have rising high-school graduation rates and rising remediations.” Seriously wrong. Billions are wasted reteaching high school.

All our Zooming may be a spark. Mr. Bush insists, “We need to flip the system on its head so that time is the variable and learning is the constant—which requires a mastery-based system.” OK, a lot to unpack there. For about a decade, many schools have used “flipped” classrooms. A teacher records lectures that students watch at home, and the next day in class students discuss the lectures and do what would’ve been their “homework.” But that model only goes so far. Lectures are still dull. They don’t engage and motivate kids. Even with small class sizes, many students fall behind.

Forget flip; the flopped classroom is coming. Upend teachers, kind of, by creating a robust online learning system, filled with building blocks and snippets that students need to complete before moving on. Not lectures from your ninth-grade history teacher, Mr. Mailitin, but learning from the best teacher in your district or state or country. Many would nominate Sal Khan and his Khan Academy.

This isn’t science fiction, though that’s the inspiration. Neal Stephenson laid out the concept in his 1995 novel ,“The Diamond Age: Or, a Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer.” Before Netscape went public and well before iPads, Mr. Stephenson envisioned learning via adaptive, customized instruction on thin portable devices. Much of the technology now exists and works. Even a voice interface is plausible. Learning can be made fun—see videogame deep dives—even delivered over phones.

When flopped, teachers (probably fewer of them) become coaches, tutors, encouragers, motivators.

WSJ: Finally, the Low Prices We Deserve

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/finally-the-low-prices-we-deserve-11589740923

Stanford Health Care cut employees’ pay 20% in late April. JetBlue Airways halved top executive compensation. A huge glut of oil, wine, airline seats and even lobsters means prices are plummeting. And whoa, Apple’s new iPhone SE is $399, quite a change from its $999 models. It’s starting: April’s consumer-price index was down 0.8%, but get ready for steady price declines and a long trip down that escalator. Like a released balloon going pffflllttt in slo-mo. Let’s call it the Great Unflation.

Yes, a made-up word—technically it’s deflation. As Milton Friedman said, “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon” that is “produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.” The opposite trend, deflation, is typically caused by a more rapid decrease in money. Current price declines aren’t primarily a monetary phenomenon, as many price increases in the past 35 years weren’t counted in the inflation stats. They were hiding in plain sight.

Have they hit a breaking point? Here’s what I mean: The 2015 Golden State Warriors, mid-playoff run, raised beer prices to $13 from $11 and—I’m convinced—shrank the cup size. Ticket prices tripled over the next few years. That didn’t show up in the CPI, but it’s real nonetheless.

You’ve seen it: $3,000 for a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco, $4,000 in New York—more than twice what you’d pay in Austin, Texas. It’s $300 for five minutes with a doctor and $75,000 to spend a year at Columbia or the University of Chicago. Average ticket prices for Lady Gaga’s concerts last year were $420. Average.

First-class stamps are 55 cents even though almost everything in your mailbox could be delivered online for free. A caramel macchiato costs $4.80. It’s $8.99 for Cold Pressed Watermelon Water at Whole Foods. We have $100 cable TV bills—same for a middling red Bordeaux or a ticket to Disneyland. Curry 7 sneakers are $140. And for a while I’ve been convinced that the word “organic” means the same thing for twice the price. Time for the pffflllttt.

We’ve been blessed for 35 years with an economy driven by relentless cost reductions in electronics.

WSJ: Graduation Is a Time for Unlearning

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/graduation-is-a-time-for-unlearning-11589139567

Dear Grads, Lockdown Class of 2020: Switch off “Animal Crossing,” wrap up that episode of “The Masked Singer,” pause practicing your TikTok “Renegade” dance, finish ironically chugging your Corona beer, and listen up—Karens, Beckys and Chads, too.

Yes, someone owes you an apology. You’re heading into the worst job market, competing with 33 million recently laid-off plus furloughed employees. I told you to take that antifungals course. To paraphrase the philosopher Bluto, 3¾ years of college down the drain. All this from a coronavirus 22-year-olds have a statistically insignificant chance of dying from. You will forever be Generation C. All of Gen X through Z’s FOMO—fear of missing out—has morphed into FOGO, fear of going out.

You got cheated out of a graduation ceremony, but don’t despair: Facebook to the rescue. This Friday it’s hosting #Graduation2020. Woo-hoo! And professors be damned—“words of wisdom” will come from Oprah, Awkwafina, Jennifer Garner, Lil Nas X and Simone Biles, with special musical guest Miley Cyrus. But, get this, only two of those six graduated from college and they are all incredibly successful. I think this is Harvard dropout Mark Zuckerberg rubbing it in.

They may not be sages, but neither are the people you trusted who got you to blow through your parents’ savings. Especially since you finished classes via videoconference—remember, you can’t Zoom a zoomer because a zoomer can’t be zoomed (ask your dad). The only good news is that you won’t have bad dreams like the rest of us about missing class or that last test. You likely passed automatically.

You were told to go to college, study hard and you’ll get a good job. But that model has been broken for a while. Instead you got cancel culture, pronoun police, plus diversity and inclusion—of everything but sound ideas, which need to be free to mingle and test-drive. You’ve been run down, you’ve been lied to. You ended up with someone else’s agenda.

“You’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. . . . The truth is often what we make of it; you heard what you wanted to hear, believed what you wanted to believe.” Sound familiar? For 20 points, who said it? Socrates? Kant? Hume? Rousseau?

WSJ: How Big Data Is Attacking the Coronavirus

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-big-data-is-attacking-the-coronavirus-11588541839

The value of a network rises in proportion to the square of the number of users, observed Ethernet inventor Robert Metcalfe. Metcalfe’s Law— precisely expressed by the formula n(n-1)/2—is what enabled Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and all social networks. The more the merrier. But it’s exactly the opposite for pandemics. You’re safest on your own or in small groups. The harm goes up in proportion to the square of the number of your contacts.

Or rather it does until it doesn’t, according to 19th-century British epidemiologist William Farr. He didn’t guess. In 1840 he studied data from the 1837-39 smallpox epidemic and noted that the number of deaths followed a normal bell-curve distribution. Known as Farr’s Law, it’s his curves that we’ve flattened. As the journalist Michael Fumento said of Covid-19, “Communicable diseases nab the ‘low-hanging fruit’ first (in this case the elderly with comorbid conditions), but then find subsequent fruit harder and harder to reach.” That echoes Farr’s observation that pandemics burn out as fast as they start. Yet that tendency, and the data that back it, has barely been mentioned during the Covid crisis.

Farr obviously didn’t plot his data on a MacBook. The first useful, programmable and electronic digital computer, Colossus, was created by Alan Turing and friends a century later in England to decrypt the Nazis’ Enigma and Lorenz code-machine communications. After the war the British were so nervous that Colossus would end up in the hands of Soviet spies that they destroyed all plans and copies. A colossal mistake.

In the U.S., by contrast, the Eniac computer, designed to help create artillery tables, wasn’t turned on until November 1945, completely missing the war. Rather than destroy it or keep it secret, on Feb. 14, 1946, the War Department miraculously put out a press release with details and invited interested parties to meetings to share ideas. Yes, share! That simple press release is why technology is dominated by U.S. firms and Silicon Valley emerged in displaced California orchards and not in, say, Shropshire, England. Call it the Eniac law: Open is better than closed. Dissemination is better than secrets. Turns out, to invoke Metcalfe’s law, ideas network too.

Fast-forward to the Covid era, with apocalyptic pandemic models driving policy. A few short weeks after the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic, Silicon Valley veteran Tom Siebel’s artificial intelligence company C3.ai went live with an open cloud-based repository. Known as a data lake, it contains location and confirmed case data from the World Health Organization and Johns Hopkins, genome sequences of Covid-19 samples from the National Center for Biotechnology Information Virus Database, global patient data such as symptoms and lab results, and the Milken Institute’s database of treatment and vaccine trackers. It’s available to everyone—nonexclusive, royalty-free. The Farr and Eniac laws in action.

WSJ: What Shape Will the Rebound Take?

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-shape-will-the-rebound-take-11587930592

For all us former at-home meteorologists turned self-appointed epidemiologists, predicting everything from barely a flu to an epidemic apocalypse of infection rates and ventilator shortages, I’ve got some good news. As the corona clampdown is (please) coming to an end, there’s a new parlor game sweeping the nation. Now, as newly minted armchair economists, we all get to predict the shape and span of the economic recovery. You’re in luck: I’ve got your buzzword-compliant cheat sheet and a few tips, sure to impress your isolation circle and both flatter and flatten their curves.

OK, we’ve clearly fallen off a cliff. There have been 26 million new unemployment claims in the past five weeks. The jobs chart looks like someone dropped a fishing line in the water with a dead whale attached. Same for oil prices. This means the drop in second-quarter gross domestic product will be . . . well, nobody knows exactly. Estimates are still in flux. Sixty economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal predicted an annualized decline of 25% on average, which works out to about 7% for the quarter alone.

But a fishing line down should mean a Polaris missile right back up, right? President Trump has even said the post-virus economy will take off “like a rocket ship.” That’s the essence of a V-shaped recovery. If we’d had a two-week house arrest—three, at max—maybe a V it would be. The unemployed return to work, stores open, new cars crank out and voilà, just like old times. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. Sad, because a short lockdown could have been enough to scare the corona out of us, instilling enough fear that we self-enforce social distancing, wear masks, distrust strangers. Mission accomplished weeks ago.

Now there’s no going back. With airplanes idle, hotels empty, theaters going bust, stores like Neiman Marcus threatening chapter 11 and oil going subzero last week, all signs suggest serious damage to the economy.

So many economists now think we’re in for a U-shaped recovery. It’s the next one down the list, though not a bad bet. But there are lots of different types of U shapes. The letter U. Then there’s the Miami Hurricanes’ “The U” hand signal with a little more time in the basement. And for true pessimists, there’s the bathtub with a long time underwater before emerging. Short sellers like to talk about L-shaped recoveries, meaning things will never come back—but ignore them. Still, any of these U’s are possible.

But economies often don’t recover symmetrically.

WSJ: Upgrade Our 8-Track Government

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/upgrade-our-8-track-government-11587317309

I’ll admit to using this line all the time: “The Howard Stern Show” asked Ringo Starr, “What did you do with the money?” “What money?” “The money your mother gave you for singing lessons.”

Earlier this month, Johns Hopkins surgeon Marty Makary told Tucker Carlson about a much-needed Covid-19 antibody test developed in January that was under review by the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Makary noted, “And we lost precious time when one of the original scientists submitted an application and was told that he had to submit it also by paper mail with a CD-ROM with the files burned on it.” CD-ROM? They might as well have asked for applications on a deck of IBM punch cards with audio on 8-track tapes. The FDA budget is around $5.8 billion. What did you do with the money?

Last week, New Jersey put out a call for Cobol programmers to update its unemployment-benefits software, which runs on mainframes installed 40 years ago. Cobol was invented in 1959. New Jersey has a $39 billion budget. What did you do with the money?

I grew up in New Jersey (Exit 14), but this ineptitude is everywhere. A 2018 study revealed that only 42% of all state and local government computer systems were implemented after Oct. 25, 2001. The rest are “old or broken,” including two-thirds of those used for child support and half of those used for unemployment or vehicle registration.

The feds, who spend $88 billion a year on information technology, are worse and notorious for ancient systems. The Pentagon’s control of nuclear missiles and bombers until very recently ran on 8-inch floppy disks from the 1970s. Some of the weather-tracking systems of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service were programmed in Fortran, as far back as the 1950s. Or the National Institutes of Health, which stopped buying fax machines . . . in 2019. And—yikes—remember the 2018 false alarm? “Ballistic Missile Threat Inbound to Hawaii. Seek Immediate Shelter. This Is Not a Drill.” And don’t forget how HealthCare.gov imploded in 2013.

According to the Government Accountability Office, as of May 2016 two different Internal Revenue Service computer systems used for tax data and refunds were written in “low level” assembly language 56 years prior.

WSJ: Coronavirus Shatters Complacency

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-shatters-complacency-11586717230

With 30 minutes’ notice, I got invited to a dinner with the writer Tom Wolfe in dot-com era Palo Alto, Calif. Oddly, I arrived first and was led to a corner table for four, where I grabbed the best seat, overlooking the restaurant. Wolfe arrived late, dressed in white, naturally, and sat opposite me—his back to the restaurant. He asked questions about Silicon Valley and then told stories of trying out for the New York Giants as a pitcher and getting cut because he only had a sinker and no fastball. Great metaphor, actually. Eventually other diners figured out who was in the house, and I watched with delight as the chirping in the room grew deafening.

I recalled this recently while rereading his December 1987 American Spectator article, “The Great Relearning.” In 1968, San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic was observing all sorts of long-gone diseases. That’s because hippies had become prone to “sweep aside all codes and restraints from the past and start out from zero,” and thus were “relearning the laws of hygiene by getting the mange, the grunge, the itch, the twitch, the thrush, the scroff, the rot.” There was a long postwar economic expansion, and it was almost as if everything useful had already been invented. Heck we were exploring space and going to the moon. It meant an entire generation could spend their parents’ money, drop out and rewrite the rules.

Sound familiar? The long boom that ran from the 1980s until last month, with a few temporary interruptions, created chronic complacency. Everything was so easy. No one really knew where stuff came from anymore. The internet just worked, without even a dial tone. Click and a book showed up at your house. Click again and a car picked you up. Again and someone rented you a spare bedroom. Too easy. Medicine just showed up at pharmacies. Milk and cookies overflowed store shelves. Some dreamed of utopia.

Soon modernity was swept aside to “start out from zero,” as many Americans old and mostly young embraced socialism and demanded big government and the end of capitalism. People got their political views from comedians and Teen Vogue. Just one short month ago, 1,548,025 Californians actually voted for avowed socialist Bernie Sanders. Amazing. Like “Night of the Living Dead,” antimodernity took over parts of the body politic. How stupid—a mental grunge, mental scroff and mental rot.

We were a rich culture obsessed with a climate “crisis” based on centurylong models that are as pie-in-the-sky as current doomsday pandemic models. Activists insisted that housing, health care and college were human rights. A cancel culture viewed the world, as Jeffrey Tucker of the American Institute for Economic Research writes, as “marred by appropriation, microaggression, identitarian denialism, and structural racism/sexism/imperialism.” Take your pick. Yes, awareness is important for those slandered, held back, disadvantaged. But should “social justice” decompose America’s entire $22 trillion economy? No thanks.

When times were good, this swept-away thinking was given free rein, and then it ran wild.

WSJ: Ode to American Toilet Paper

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ode-to-american-toilet-paper-11586112316

A few weeks into the lockdown, let’s assess where we are. First, we’re all germophobes now. Handshakes are so yesterday. We’re caught up on “Tiger King” episodes on Netflix. We appreciate Amazon same-day delivery now that most orders take a week. We miss sitting in restaurants and milking a table over meaningless conversations. Same for sports, which provided a great background noise to life. Grocery supply chains still seem to work. And given which shelves are bare at Costco and most supermarkets, we see clearly that Americans have a weird fascination with not running out of toilet paper.

This last one should come as no surprise. It’s part of what separates us from the, err, “unwashed” masses. Anyone who has traveled outside the U.S. knows exactly what I’m talking about. I was warned not to shake hands in India.

But why are Americans different? We obsess because, like French wine or Italian coffee, we have the best, so we flaunt it. Be thankful for the glories of two-ply—my kingdom for a 12-pack of 1,000-sheet rolls, still hard to come by. No surprise that in what was definitely not a slow news day on Wednesday, there was national coverage of an overturned 18-wheeler near Dallas because its load of thousands of rolls was burning.

Sure, toilet paper may be controlled by the patriarchy: the Scott brothers, Clarence and Edward, and ol’ Mr. Whipple, who insists that you “don’t squeeze the Charmin!” But once you go two-ply, you can never go back. No wonder Americans hoard.

The first commercial toilet paper was introduced in 1857 by a New Yorker named Joseph Gayetty. It was sold as Gayetty’s Medicated Paper—with aloe. It even had his named embossed on the flat sheets. Rolls were first patented in 1891. By 1935 Northern Tissue started advertising that its toilet paper was “splinter-free”—another reminder that you really didn’t want to be born before then. Two-ply was invented in England in 1942, around the same time as electronic computers.

But take a trip to parts of Europe or Asia or especially South America, and you’ll learn quickly that they’re stuck in the past.

WSJ: Innovate From Your Couch

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/innovate-from-your-couch-11585509674

By now you may have read about how Isaac Newton, while sheltering in place during the 1665 closure of the University of Cambridge for the bubonic plague, used his free time to discover gravity and invent calculus. And how during the closing of London theaters due to plague in 1606, William Shakespeare had nothing better to do and wrote “King Lear” and “Macbeth.” Those guys didn’t even have Wi-Fi. You do, plus extra time. Be productive.

Most of us work with our nose to the grindstone: developing drugs, selling homes, marketing gluten-free potato chips, restocking toilet-paper shelves, prescribing blood-pressure medicine, teaching calculus, manufacturing respirators—heck, even knocking out weekly columns. We rarely come up for air and ask if there is a better way of doing all this. Many jobs have long been ripe for disruption, and now they’re being upended in real time. Productivity—doing the right things the right way—is progress, is wealth creation, is what pays for government stimulus. Actually, economic growth is the sum of each of our productivity stories.

How to find it? Well, I’m a sucker for origin stories (except those involving apocryphal fruit, like Newton’s apple and Washington’s cherry tree). So much discovery and product creation happen away from work, when you have absolutely nothing better to do. The mind wanders, problems are puzzled over, and ideas start popping into your head, often in the strangest places and times.

Google famously instituted “20% time,” which let employees spend a fifth of their time on personal projects that benefited Google. But by 2015 only 10% of employees used their 20% time. Former Googler Marissa Mayer claimed it was more like 120% time. Too bad.

In 1993 I helped take public Avid Technology, which created early digital video-editing tools, initially on superfast but expensive workstations costing $25,000 to $50,000. After seeing demos, Apple had sent Avid a few prototypes of its new Macintosh model and helped the company port software to cheaper Macs. But it was too slow, which is why no one else was editing video on personal computers.

One of Avid’s co-founders, engineer Eric Peters, told me he was home sick for a few weeks around then.

WSJ: Cracker Jack Economics

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cracker-jack-economics-11584906547

What is it with Cracker Jack politicians who want a prize in every package?

Last week when Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders clashed over stimulus in a primary debate, Mr. Biden celebrated the 2009 Recovery Act, saying it “had $900 billion in it and was the thing that kept us from going into a Great Depression.” If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to nowhere to sell you. The Obama administration touted “shovel ready” projects—they were shoveling something, all right. Then again, remember President George W. Bush’s 2008 $152 billion stimulus in the form of tax-rebate checks? The “booster shot” for the economy was a huge dud. Sadly, here we go again—a stimulus for all of us.

What actually saved the economy in 2009 was one word: backstop. Finance froze because toxic mortgage-backed securities littered the system and, as with mad-cow disease, no one knew which ones were bad. The Federal Reserve provided a backstop to the commercial-paper market, then money-market funds and eventually banks, by buying up many mortgages to relieve default risk. Once bank stress tests took Armageddon off the table, lending restarted and the crisis ended. Spending on roads and bailing out General Motors were mere pork-barrel waste.

The economy is now grinding to a halt. Forty million Californians must “shelter in place” until further notice. New Yorkers too. Everywhere bars are (gasp!) closed. Planes are empty. Cruise ships are mothballed. Marriott and other hotel chains are furloughing employees.

Politicians need to do something, right? Yes, but it should be short-term and temporary. President Trump has a “big bold plan.” White House adviser Peter Navarro wants an $800 billion payroll-tax cut. Senate Republicans want to send $1,200 checks to a huge share of Americans. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is negotiating with congressional leaders a bailout of as much as $2 trillion. Rep. Ro Khanna, Mr. Sanders’s campaign co-chairman, ups the ante with checks of up to $6,000 for those making less than $65,000. Candy-coated popcorn, peanuts and a prize.

Mr. Mnuchin has smartly authorized the Fed, via Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, to lend directly to solvent companies, creating a trillion-dollar backstop for the commercial-paper market and money-market funds. A “lender of last resort” is needed. Airlines need capital, so lend to them at a Bagehotian penalty rate, against future ticket sales or even planes as collateral. The penalty rate is to make sure those that don’t need it don’t clog the system. The same program could shore up hotels and other still-solvent large businesses. And with support from the Fed, banks can do the same for small businesses. If the economy has a three-month hole because of quarantines and lockdowns, the Fed can provide a bridge loan across that void.

WSJ: Crisis Means a New Business Era

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/crisis-means-a-new-business-era-11584313927

The junk-bond-financed $6.75 billion buyout of United Airlines collapsed on Friday, Oct. 13, 1989. The stock market immediately dropped 191 points or almost 7%, equivalent to a 1,500-point drop today. Scary.

Rod Berens, head of research at Morgan Stanley at the time, called a departmentwide meeting after the market closed. I dreaded going. I had a list of tech stocks I was recommending that got killed that day. When I showed up, I noticed several cases of champagne—a weird way to celebrate the loss of wealth. But why not? I grabbed a glass; it was Friday.

And then my boss headed toward me. Uh oh, I thought, he’s going to fire me. Instead, he smiled, gave me a high-five and said, “Congratulations, now it’s your turn,” and clinked my glass. Talk about confused—one of the worst days in my professional life and I get congratulated?

I didn’t see it at the time, but he was dead right. Eras change, sometimes overnight. Over the next decade, the stock market shifted from junk-bond-fueled buyouts, a dominant Japan and the Cold War to highly valued emerging technology companies, ending with the dot-com blowout.

The current market turmoil tells me a new era is breaking, so question everything. Will cable, energy, mobile and social media ever come back? And if not, what’s next?

Well, the knee-jerk reactions will come first.

WSJ: How to Read the Myopic Market

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-read-the-myopic-market-11583685581

Happy 20th anniversary Tuesday to the Nasdaq index peak of 5049 back in 2000, zenith of the dot-com era. After observing our current beer-head frothy market for months, I was an idiot for thinking I could hold off until today to write a warning column. The market always trades to maximize pain. So, ouch.

Time waits for no one. One thing I’ve learned investing is that for every stock there’s this invisible arrow pointing to some moment, some time in the future, that markets focus on to evaluate it. That time horizon isn’t published anywhere; it’s something you feel, an equity duration. Typically, it’s 12 to 18 months.

Euphoria drives that arrow out years. Beyond Meat was selling at 20 times 2020 revenue, Apple stock boomed even with flat-ish iPhone sales, and Tesla stock did Icarus-like figure eights close to the sun. But Nasdaq and the entire market have done so many daily ascents and drops and barrel rolls since their peak Feb. 19—it’s now a coronavirus roller-coaster market. Why? Because uncertainty can collapse time horizons to months or even tomorrow.

Remember, a stock’s value is the sum of all future profits discounted back to today. It’s dependent on profits, growth and risk. Investors estimate future profits and growth rates, but risk? Again, you can’t look that up anywhere—it’s just a feeling based on interest rates, competition, world events and more. Beyond Meat seemed to be priced for five years out. Risk is in the eye of the beholder. So investors use a shorthand: A price-to-earnings multiple that provides some hint to how far out the market is looking. In May 1999, Yahoo’s P/E multiple hit 1,062!

Twenty years ago, we had this new internet thing, a loose Federal Reserve, AOL juicing startups in exchange for IPO shares, and momentum investors, or momos. Like ants to a lollipop, momos crawled into dot-com stocks, pouring in price-insensitive money that attracted even more momos. George Soros’s hedge fund might have been the last one in. After the Federal Reserve flooded the world with dollars to mitigate the nonexistent Y2K threat, it pulled back in early 2000 and markets reversed. Momos became nonos. After 9/11, when time horizons collapsed from years to months, Amazon’s stock had fallen 94%, to $6.

Today’s market madness features fewer IPOs, but the loose Fed and momos are present and accounted for.

WSJ: Give Philanthropy the Market Test

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/give-philanthropy-the-market-test-11583100757

I’m always mystified by philanthropic foundations and how fruitlessly they disperse their capitalism-provided funds. Bloomberg Philanthropies spends a chunk of its $8 billion on “Sustainable Cities.” The new $10 billion Bezos Earth Fund is backing climate activists. The $12 billion Ford Foundation insists, “To address the climate crisis, we must address inequality.”

Huh? Way more than philanthropy, free-market capitalism gets people out of poverty, raises living standards and cures the world’s ills. Of the four things you can do with your money—spend it, pay taxes, give it away or invest it—investing is the only one that increases productivity, the scaffolding of capitalism and societal wealth.

So my eyebrows rose when I was offered a chance to meet Raj Shah, president of the $4 billion Rockefeller Foundation. Maybe I’d be able to gather some squishy grant-making examples to make fun of. Boy was I wrong.

Perhaps the Rockefeller difference traces in part to the foundation’s founder. John D. Rockefeller was an interesting guy, much maligned despite bringing light and heat to the masses (and saving whales). On top of his heroic business efforts, he understood where philanthropy could be useful.

A favorite book of mine, Ron Chernow’s 1998 “Titan,” describes how Rockefeller made his money, then gave it away. He looked for big projects only he could fund, such as eradicating hookworm—a parasite that struck people who walked barefoot, predominantly Southern blacks. Rockefeller funded tests for thousands of rural citizens and provided shoes. It worked. One branch of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation uses a similar philosophy to fight malaria and HIV.

Mr. Shah told me about the Rockefeller Foundation’s recent deal to bring reliable power to millions of people in India.

WSJ: Don’t Buy Into Big-Tech Hysteria

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-buy-into-big-tech-hysteria-11582484198

Is Big Tech “downgrading humanity”? So says former Googler and podcaster Tristan (rhymes with “twist-on”) Harris, director of the weirdly named Center for Humane Technology. Mr. Harris and many of his fellow tech skeptics describe humans as little different from pets, believing everyone who uses Facebook or an iPhone is a manipulatable idiot. He couldn’t be more wrong.

Mr. Harris preaches about an “attention crisis.” OK, you have my attention. Testifying before the Senate last year, he said tech companies are in a “race to the bottom of the brain stem.” He also claimed humans in the 21st century still have “Paleolithic emotions.” Basically, “we’re chimpanzees with nukes.” Wait, did he just call you a chimp?

Elsewhere he has claimed that social networks are delivering “outrage that works on the piano key of your nervous system.” The man can certainly turn a phrase. He explains that “technology is getting better and better at hacking human weaknesses.” And you’d better put down that glass, because “we’re drinking from the Flint water supply of information.”

Mr. Harris’s most fevered claim is that social media has taken over politics. “We’re not really in control of world history anymore,” he says. “The technology companies that are shaping our information sense-making environment are in control of every major electoral outcome, and whether people believe conspiracy theories.” And there it is. It isn’t Hillary Clinton’s fault she lost in 2016. It was maybe the Russians and certainly Big Bad Tech. Mr. Harris insists “one side is currently winning by there not being regulation.” You can probably guess which one he means.

Mr. Harris believes “we’ve been manipulated into this multiyear-long hypnotic trance,” and that “we need someone to snap their fingers and wake all of us up out of this.” A savior, a messiah. Might that someone be Mr. Harris?

Alarmism can be a lucrative business.

WSJ: President Donald J. MacGuffin

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/president-donald-j-macguffin-11581278117

Is he a disease or a cure? Like him or hate him, there’s tons of spilled ink trying to assess President Trump’s governing style. To me, the key to understanding Trumpism is remembering why he was elected.

What do I mean? Voters chose Donald Trump as an antidote to the growing inflammation caused by the (OK, deep breath . . .) prosperity-crushing, speech-inhibiting, nanny state-building, carbon-obsessing, patriarchy-bashing, implicit bias-accusing, tokey-wokey, globalist, swamp-creature governing class—all perfectly embodied by the Democrats’ 2016 nominee. On taking office, Mr. Trump proceeded to hire smart people and create a massive diversion (tweets, border walls, tariffs) as a smokescreen to let them implement an agenda of tax cuts, deregulation and originalist judges.

Those reforms have left the market free to do its magic and got the economy grooving like it’s 1999. The daily Trump hurricane—like the commotion over the Chiefs from Kansas—makes the media focus on the all-powerful wizard while ignoring the policy makers behind the curtain.

Alfred Hitchcock called this kind of distraction a “MacGuffin”—something that moves the plot along and provides motivation for the characters, but is itself unimportant, insignificant or irrelevant. It can be a kind of sleight of hand, a distraction, and Mr. Trump uses his own public persona as a MacGuffin in precisely that way. The mobs decked in “Resist” jewelry fall for it every time.

For example, Sen. Bernie Sanders used his remarks during the Senate impeachment trial to point out that the media had documented some 16,200 alleged lies by President Trump. The MacGuffin worked! Mr. Sanders and his peers are focused on the president’s words, while most voters see the real plot unfolding in America—millions of jobs and rising wages.

The president’s success comes from his ability to shrug off critics. My son went to college in the early days of the social justice power grab. He recalls heated discussions in which someone would interrupt him to say, “Sorry, but you don’t get a say—you have white privilege.” My son would shoot right back: “Yeah, I don’t believe in that,” and resume his argument.

WSJ: How I Almost Bought the Knicks

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-i-almost-bought-the-knicks-11580673783

Kobe Bryant dropped 61 points on the New York Knicks on Feb. 2, 2009, at Madison Square Garden. The Knicks have been painfully awful for years, appearing in the playoffs only five times since 2000. Here’s a secret: I almost bought the Knicks. Well, “almost” is a stretch.

Sitting bored at my desk at Morgan Stanley in 1994, I got a call from a college friend, John Demitroff, then a G.X. Clarke & Co. bond salesman. “You work for an investment-banking company,” he said. “Could you help Dave DeBusschere and me buy the Knicks?” I think I spit out my coffee.

It turned out that seven years earlier John had overheard that the EF Hutton brokerage firm was raising a $350 million fund to buy National Basketball Association franchises. The next day he read an article about DeBusschere and left a message to pitch him on a business opportunity buying NBA teams. Now this made some sense: No. 22 DeBusschere was an NBA champion, hall of famer, eight-time All Star and even the commissioner of the American Basketball Association when it merged with the NBA in 1976. An old boss had told my friend, “When you see an opportunity, just ask. You never know.”

Sage advice. Amazingly, DeBusschere called back the next day and they met at a downtown New York diner. John explained that he had a buyer (EF Hutton) and needed sellers. DeBusschere knew everyone in the NBA—would he be interested? DeBusschere agreed and they even signed a short partnership deal. And then . . . nothing happened. EF Hutton kited checks and was sold to Shearson Lehman. The partnership unraveled.

Now jump ahead to ’94. The Knicks (along with the Rangers, Madison Square Garden and the MSG Network) were put up for sale by Viacom, which had taken control of its owner, Paramount. That’s when my friend called for help. I was an analyst following tech companies, not even an investment banker; we were just a couple of know-nothing 30-somethings. No matter—I was in.

The first thing I told John was to get “the book.”

WSJ: Phones That Can Read Your Mind

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/phones-that-can-read-your-mind-11580071868

When I first met Larry Page and Sergey Brin around 1999, Google’s accidental billionaire founders (they couldn’t even sell their technology to Yahoo for $1 million) gave a talk about the future of search. Mr. Page rambled for a while, then stopped, grinned and said, “what we really want to do is know what you want before you even think it.” The audience laughed nervously, but that’s been a driving force of technology ever since.

Ad men since “Mad Men” have tried to bend our minds into buying products they’re pitching for their clients. But will we ever get real personalized advertising—ad systems that interact with us closely, in a real-time two-way dialogue about our wants and desires—that it will be a step ahead of our thinking?

I posed this question to advertising giant Martin Sorrell. He built the ad agency WPP in the 1980s based on the “big TV idea,” and today we’re inundated 24/7 with Bud Knight, the Geico gecko and Flo from Progressive. It’s now easy to tune out. Yet with the rise of the “fearsome fivesome” online behemoths—Google, Facebook, Amazon, Alibaba and Tencent—Mr. Sorrell suggests we’ve entered the era of “personalization at scale.”

He defines personalized advertising as “content, not perfect and not tent-pole, tailored to your needs and delivered to you at the time you want and the format you respond to.” He’s even created a purely digital advertising company, S4 Capital, to apply the strategy. Facebook, for instance, figured out the average person spends 1.7 seconds looking at Newsfeed posts on mobile devices, so S4 helped its client L’Oréal create 2-second makeup ads.

S4 also helped Netflix promote its drug kingpin show, “Narcos,” by cutting it into a million different short segments. Surfers at WSJ.com might see ads likening the show to business. Those on a sports or fitness site would see ads with lots of ripped muscles.

It’s the feedback loop that makes it personal.

WSJ: Your DNA Could Catch a Criminal

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/your-dna-could-catch-a-criminal-11578863580

In December, Michigan police arrested Robert Brian Thomas as a suspect in two cases of sexual battery—committed in Florida in 1998. These were the latest of hundreds of cold cases investigated since the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s April 2018 arrest of Joseph James DeAngelo, the alleged Golden State Killer. There are still hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits nationwide, but now technology may make it almost impossible to get away with this crime. Privacy concerns are an obstacle in solving cold cases—but not an insurmountable one.

Here’s a quick recap of how crime DNA is processed. The first step is for law enforcement to check samples against the Codis database, the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System. Codis is limited in its use of only 20 DNA markers, and it has records only for convicts and some prior detainees. Only 14% of sexual-assault DNA is matched to a suspect through Codis.

Fortunately, Ancestry.com has the DNA of more than 15 million users, and 23andMe has 10 million. Neither shares data with law enforcement. But many users upload their results to third-party sites, like GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA, to find long-lost relatives. DNASolves is another database recently set up specifically to help solve crimes.

After GEDmatch co-founder Curtis Rogers opened access to law enforcement, investigators uploaded DNA from one of the Golden State Killer’s 50 rape and 13 murder crime scenes from 1974-86. They didn’t find a direct match but discovered enough potential close relatives to search the family tree and narrow down the suspects. They followed Mr. DeAngelo to a store and swiped his DNA off the door handle of his car.

David Mittelman, who runs DNASolves, explains the numbers. Using DNA sequencing, he can analyze a sample for $5,000, which covers DNA extraction, genealogy and manpower. “Hopefully costs will halve in the next three to five years,” he says.

Hundreds more cold cases have been investigated since the Golden State Killer arrest.

WSJ: Tech Will Rule These ’20s, Too

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tech-will-rule-these-20s-too-11578262248

Does history rhyme? A century ago, the ’20s boomed, driven by consumer spending on homes, cars, radios and newfangled appliances like refrigerators, sewing machines and vacuum cleaners. Most Americans couldn’t afford the upfront cost of a lot of these goods, so manufacturers and retailers invented installment plans. Debt ruled as 75% of cars, furniture and washing machines were bought on credit.

The supply-side policies of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, who pushed for tax cuts in 1921, 1924 and 1926, increased the capital available for new consumer businesses. The consumption boom also sparked a giant service industry: My grandfather ran Kessler’s Refrigeration Service in Brooklyn, N.Y. Lifestyle advertising was perfected on billboards and in tabloids, which, like today, led to complaints about ads’ ubiquity and influence.

And stocks were hot, hot, hot. Radio Corp. of America shares were worth $11 in 1924, $20 in January 1928 and $114 in 1929, with a peak price/earnings ratio of 72. Turns out equities could be bought on installment too—sometimes a margin loan with a measly 10% down payment.

Like the movie “Titanic,” you know how this ends. Speculation. Tariffs. And finally, the crash of Oct. 28-29, where the market dropped 13% on Black Monday and 12% on Black Tuesday, triggering widespread margin calls for debt repayment. That risk is why the Federal Reserve now caps stock margins at 50%. According to legend, it’s also why windows in New York skyscrapers don’t open. By 1932, RCA stock was worth $3.

So what’s next? My fundamental rule for finding growth trends is that you need to see viable technologies today, and then predict which ones will get cheaper and better over time. Microprocessors, storage, bandwidth—all still going strong after half a century.

The fundamental building block of the 2020s will be artificial intelligence, particularly machine learning. Better to ask what it won’t change this decade.

WSJ: In Tech Years, 2010 Was Eons Ago

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-tech-years-2010-was-eons-ago-11577648410

Now that was a decade! In 2009 we wore analog watches, had landline phones, hung out in bookstores, and even hailed taxis. Ah, the good old days. Please don’t make us go back.

Jobless claims were 432,000 in the final week of 2009; they’re now 222,000. Unemployment was 10%; it’s now 3.5%. Ten-year Treasurys were yielding 3.8% and are now at 1.9%—a lower rate than most economists thought possible with unemployment so low.

Oil went from $80 a barrel to $60. The Fed now has $4 trillion in total assets to provide liquidity for the global economy. We’re in the midst of a record expansion, and past decade had no down year for U.S. gross domestic product. Wow. No wonder the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose from 10428 to over 28000.

In 2009 Apple started selling the iPhone 3GS. It had a 3½-inch screen with a 480-by-320 display—less than half the resolution of a 20th-century TV set. The hot feature was—wait for it—a “built-in digital compass.” The price tag was $199. It sold like hotcakes. You wouldn’t want one now.

In 2019 the iPhone 11 Pro has a 5.8-inch screen and a 2,436-by-1,125 display. It features 30,000 infrared probes that can read your face. Yet everyone complains about the $999 price, and sales are flat.

Numbers don’t do the decade justice anyhow.

WSJ: Santa, Where’s My Hoverboard?

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/santa-wheres-my-hoverboard-11577045182

Another year, another disappointment—I’m still not getting a hoverboard for Christmas. And I mean the real Marty McFly hoverboard, not that self-balancing scooter thing on Amazon that catches fire. Actually, there are lots of “gifts from the future” I’m not getting this year, even though many of them are already feasible or are really, really close to being possible.

Like what? Let’s start with an autonomous selfie drone. Selfie sticks are for tourists—give me a tiny drone with a camera and facial recognition that hovers a few feet away, automatically finds my face, and snaps away. Many early versions have failed. I want an untethered GoPro-like substitute that automatically follows me while I ski, skateboard or surf, taking photos and videos from different angles, instantly suitable for narcissistic social postings.

Next, I want “Gridlock Go.” Stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic, my car would automatically stay the proper “safety cushion” distance and in the correct lane directly behind the car in front and drive hands-free. Many vehicles have all the sensors, brakes and steering to pull this off. If I’m lucky and hit about 25 miles an hour, it would then beep loudly for me to take over, or engage the regular active cruise control. Actually, this does exist, sort of, but it’s rare. Some Cadillacs have Super Cruise, and BMWs have Extended Traffic Jam Assistant. They steer hands-free but have driver-facing cameras to make sure you pay attention. This should be standard equipment in every metropolitan area.

Next I’d like a pair of augmented-reality glasses to watch sporting events, with simple graphics that can focus on a player and tell me his batting average or probability of making a 3-pointer from that location, or show the yellow first-down line. These glasses should work whether you’re watching a game in person or on TV, which is probably easier. It’s just math. The data exists, the bandwidth exists; it just needs to work in real time—and be made cheap enough.

What else? It’s time someone got me a Smart Mirror. Good morning Andy, it’s a beautiful day, cheer the heck up! On my bathroom wall, it fills me in on the day’s events, warns me that my clothes don’t match (a frequent occurrence), and maybe, in conjunction with a health tricorder (get me one of those, too), reads me my vitals. There are a few expensive smart mirrors for exercise. But really, I don’t want to see myself sweat.

I also want a device that records and provides transcripts of all my calls and meetings, stored securely for privacy.

WSJ: Self-Driving Cars Roll Up Slowly

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/self-driving-cars-roll-up-slowly-11576439387

I recently got a ride in an autonomous car. Very cool. I want one! Ever since October 2005, when a Stanford autonomous vehicle traversed 132 miles of desert terrain and won the $2 million Grand Challenge prize from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, dreams of self-driving cars have become feverish.

Cars that drop you off at a restaurant and park themselves while you dine, restful commutes, hyperbolic Elon Musk predicting a million Tesla robo-taxis by 2020, 40,000 annual U.S. car crash fatalities dropping to almost nothing. All I can think is, are we there yet? Unfortunately, I suspect patience is in order.

In recent years, the rubber has met the road and hit a few potholes. General Motors subsidiary Cruise planned to launch self-driving taxis in San Francisco this year. It didn’t happen. Daimler recently had a “reality check” on plans for 10,000 robo-taxis by 2021. Ford chief executive Jim Hackett, doing joint research with Volkswagen, said in April, “We overestimated the arrival of autonomous vehicles.” The initial hype cycle has played out, and now it’s time to wait for vehicles to get cheap enough to make economic sense. Just like every other new technology product ever.

Alphabet subsidiary Waymo is testing self-driving Chrysler Pacifica hybrid minivans. Sitting on top is a giant 1,000-foot-range lidar, which is basically a radar that uses laser light instead of microwaves. It costs more than the minivan itself. Plus it has image sensors to see color, and audio sensors to hear emergency vehicles. There are also several radars to see through snow, rain, fog and dust. And attached to the front and back are six short-range lidars to find curbs and pedestrians.

If a pedestrian even flinches an arm into a crosswalk, the car stops. Waymos do get confused by lane-splitting motorcycles, especially when one approaches rapidly from the rear. The sensor can’t figure out whether it’s a bike, person, animal. Waymo’s next version will use Jaguar’s I-PACE electric car.

It’s not a game for the thin of wallet.

WSJ: Let Bosnia’s Scars Be a Reminder

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/let-bosnias-scars-be-a-reminder-11575838155

The most dangerous concert you didn’t attend happened 25 years ago this Saturday. The venue was a small community center in Sarajevo, Bosnia, a city under siege from 1992-96 during the Yugoslav Wars. Serbs controlled the hills that surround most of the city. United Nations peacekeeping troops controlled the airport and did, well, not much. And yes, this was the conflict during which Hillary Clinton falsely remembered “landing under sniper fire.”

Someone from the U.N. thought a concert would lift spirits in Sarajevo and asked the Rolling Stones to perform. When they passed, a heavy-metal fan in the U.N., Maj. Martin Morris, booked Motörhead, who abruptly canceled. Mr. Morris then contacted Bruce Dickinson, lead singer for Iron Maiden, (of the classic “Run to the Hills”) who was then touring as a solo act, along with a few backup players. Mr. Dickinson immediately answered, “Yeah, why not.” This is all covered in an excellent documentary, “Scream for Me Sarajevo.” It’s worth watching even if your musical tastes run toward show tunes. (By the way, U2 also played in Sarajevo, but in 1997, after the siege had ended.)

When the helicopter Mr. Dickinson planned to take from Split, Croatia, was attacked shortly before the trip, the band instead loaded into a delivery truck painted with a Road Runner cartoon. Armed with beer and vodka, they drove up Mount Igman, crossing near Serbian lines in the middle of the night to get to a U.N. checkpoint, then transferred to armed personnel carriers for the short ride into Sarajevo.

The city buzzed with anticipation. Even though two mortar rounds hit the venue’s entrance earlier in the day, the Dec. 14 show was a huge success. “The gig was immense, intense and probably the biggest show in the world at that moment for the audience and for us,” Mr. Dickinson recalled. “That the world didn’t really know didn’t matter. It changed the way I viewed life, death and other human beings.”

The bass player, Chris Dale, remembers being asked by a local soldier if they brought any drugs with them. Mr. Dale told him no, drugs are bad for you. The local responded that his life expectancy was pretty short already. Such was the desperation in a city under siege.

WSJ: The Five Traits of True Tech

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-five-traits-of-true-tech-11575229527

It seems everyone wants to be a technology company these days. But not every company is worth 40 times earnings and 15 times sales in the stock market. How can you tell which growing companies might sustain that valuation? Put more broadly, in the wake of WeWork’s woes, what qualifies a company as highly valued tech?

Any company can call itself tech. Heck, Long Island Iced Tea Corp. changed its name in 2017 to Long Blockchain Corp. and the stock popped 400% to $13 (it’s now $0.16). But can companies that sell razors, glasses or mattresses be high tech? Exercise bikes? Insurance? Or even ads?

I came up with a list of five attributes of real high tech that investors should study. Let’s call it the GRuMPS™: Growth, Research and development, Margins, Productivity and Spending. Score one point for each—get enough, win valuable prizes. Collect all five and you’ll have a company that might trade at a high earnings multiple for a long time, not just the day of the IPO.

High growth: Two friends writing code to automate a lemonade stand is not high tech. Growth is key. The growth I’m enamored with usually comes from scale, meaning technology lowers the cost of a business model for which customers are clamoring. Intel lowered the cost of computing. Facebook lowered the cost of reaching consumers. Salesforce lowered the cost of using software. Even though prices go down, units go up faster so you get rapid and sustainable growth. Beware of fake growth like market-share growth: If you sell seat cushions for a 50,000-seat stadium, you can double sales every year but eventually you’ll run out of seats. Instead look for giant markets.

High R&D: Technology is never static. Hot products today are obsolete within a year. Huge R&D spending is critical to stay ahead. Look for intellectual property that scales. Companies often boost earnings by starving research, a serious red flag.

WSJ: Man Bites Dog? That’s a Mistake

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/man-bites-dog-thats-a-mistake-11574634718

A short business week provides time to think. Here’s what I’ve figured out so far:

Why I don’t eat hot dogs. My wife had an uncle in the vending/food-service business. A friend of his asked him to bid on a contract to provide hot dogs for their corporate cafeteria. He bid 75 cents a hot dog. A competitor bid 50 cents and won the contract.

Months later the uncle ran into his friend, who apologized but said: “I don’t understand. We’ve known each other for a lot of years, and I thought you would cut me a good price, but the other guy came in so much lower, I didn’t have a choice.” My wife’s uncle responded, “I don’t normally bid on hot dogs. You tell me how much you’re willing to pay, and I’ll provide them at that price.” He meant he could supply hot dogs at almost any price point by varying the ratio of meat to byproducts.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture says hot dogs can have beef, pork, chicken and turkey from “raw skeletal muscle meat” and meat derived from “advanced meat/bone separation machines.” Do hoofs have muscles? It also allows “mechanically separated meat,” which is basically paste from a high-pressure machine that removes meat without grinding the bone—a source of calcium nonetheless. And don’t forget those “meat byproducts” like heart, kidney or liver. Mmm mmm good.

I used to enjoy what we called “dirty water dogs” at ballparks—the kind that come out of the mysterious hot-water tank and get slapped onto a bun at your seat. No more. And I’m certainly wary of “dollar dog night” anywhere. Final word: I don’t normally quote Snoop Dogg, but here we agree: “Every time I see a mother— at a barbecue with a plate with a hot dog on it, I’m knockin’ that [expletive] out his hands.”

Why I stop for cars that honk at me. While in grad school in cosmopolitan Champaign, Ill., I met someone from St. Louis who shared my fanatical fandom of Cardinals baseball. On a beautiful spring day, we drove down for a game. He knew where to park free, and on the walk to Busch Stadium we stopped at every location that sold glasses of cold Anheuser-Busch products.

WSJ: Old Age Will Put China to Rest

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/old-age-will-put-china-to-rest-11574018820

The trade tiff with China lingers on—let’s just cut a deal for zero tariffs and move on. Then we can tackle the next question: Is there any real chance that China—with gross domestic product per capita lower than Mexico’s—could soon pass the U.S. in size and strength? The prospect is daunting, but we’ve been here before. Does anyone remember books like “Trading Places: How We Are Giving Our Future To Japan”? Me neither. The reality is that for every country, demographics is destination.

I recently attended the Sohn Conference in San Francisco, which raises money for charity by having hedge-fund managers pitch their best investment idea. Most talks were about broken stocks or esoteric cloud software companies hoping to double in value in three years. But Adam Fisher from Commonwealth Asset Management talked about decadeslong trends in China. (I didn’t talk to Mr. Fisher directly: Silly securities laws prohibit funds from marketing broadly while they’re raising money. So my notes will have to do.)

It turns out that China’s work-age population has peaked or is close to peaking—that pesky one-child policy worked. Even worse for Beijing, according to projections by the United Nations Development Program, China’s 65-and-over population is expected to grow by more than 150%, from 135 million in 2015 to 340 million by 2040, which will be 21% of the population. That’s a lot of retirees. By the way, the current retirement age in China is 60 for men, 55 for women, though both are set to increase gradually.

By comparison, Japan’s 65-and-older population reached 26% by 2015. But as the saying goes, Japan got rich before it got old. What about China?

According to the political economist Nicholas Eberstadt, less than 65% of Chinese workers are covered by any retirement benefits. That share drops to 35% for urban migrants. That’s many mouths to feed in old age.

And here’s where it gets dicey.

WSJ: Warren Is the WeWork Candidate

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/warren-is-the-wework-candidate-11573411997

Are presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren and WeWork founder Adam Neumann the same person? I mean, they have different hairstyles and all, but their philosophies are more alike than not.

They both claim, falsely, to be capitalists. Ms. Warren told the New England Council last year, “I am a capitalist to my bones.” She then told CNBC, “I am a capitalist. Come on. I believe in markets.” It was almost as if she didn’t believe it herself. Then came the caveat: “But only fair markets, markets with rules. Markets without rules is about the rich take it all, it’s about the powerful get all of it. And that’s what’s gone wrong in America.” She clearly doesn’t understand capitalism.

Neither does Mr. Neumann, who said of WeWork, “We are making a capitalist kibbutz.” Talk about mixed metaphors. In Israel, a kibbutz is often defined as “a collective community, traditionally based in agriculture.” WeWork’s prospectus for its initial public offering mentioned the word “community” 150 times. Yet one little secret of kibbutzim is that many of them hired outsiders to do menial jobs that the “community” wouldn’t do, similar to migrant workers on U.S. farms. A capitalist kibbutz is a plain old farm, much like a WeWork building is plain old shared office space. Big deal.

Ms. Warren wants to reshape capitalism, while Mr. Neumann wants to “revolutionize your workspace.” Meanwhile, the Vision Fund, with capital from SoftBank and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, has thrown good money after bad, writing off $9.2 billion in its quest toward this WeWork revolution. The same mismatch between communitarian vision and market realities would doom Ms. Warren’s economic reshaping. It’s hard to repeal good old capitalism.

The commonalities go on. Last year, Ms. Warren proposed the Accountable Capitalism Act. If it became law, large companies would have to obtain a federal charter that “obligates company directors to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders,” or dare I say, community. For each company, Ms. Warren insists that “40% of its directors are selected by the corporation’s employees.” Back to the kibbutz?

In six months in 2019, WeWork lost $1.4 billion on $1.5 billion in revenue. Impressive!

WSJ: Follow Michael Crichton’s Rule

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/follow-michael-crichtons-rule-11572814056

“Jurassic Park” and “Westworld,” from the brilliant mind of Michael Crichton, aren’t real. But neither are a lot of things that pass for arguments these days. Crichton, who died in 2008, gave a lecture at Caltech in 2003 titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming.” In his words, it was about the “uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy” but I took away a lot more. Relax, this column isn’t about climate change.

His first example was nuclear winter. In 1975 the National Academy of Sciences stated that even with multiple nuclear detonations, the effect from dust would be minor. In 1979 Congress’s Office of Technology Assessment said the science was poorly understood and it wasn’t possible to estimate damage. Yet by 1982 the Swedish Academy of Sciences speculated that smoke would cover the Northern Hemisphere, blocking the sun and disabling photosynthesis—nuclear winter.

Within five years, famed astronomer Carl “Billions and Billions” Sagan figured a 5,000-megaton nuclear exchange would cause temperatures to drop below freezing for three months. Of course, there was no empirical study to back any of this. But what amazed me was the observation that no one could take the other side of the argument. Physicist Freeman Dyson said, “It’s an absolutely atrocious piece of science, but who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?” Argument over.

Same for secondhand smoke. In 1994 the Environmental Protection Agency found that 11 studies of the link between smoke in restaurants or offices and cancer were not conclusive, but nonetheless labeled secondhand smoke a Group A carcinogen. The World Health Organization also began to warn against secondhand smoke despite inconclusive studies of its own. Since then, study after study has found no statistically significant relationship between cancer and being near indoor smoking. Yet no one takes the other side of the argument. Except for smokers, no one likes the smell of tar and nicotine while they’re eating or working. Yuck. No one, including me, is actually for secondhand smoke.

Crichton observed: “Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything is possible.” That includes children at the United Nations yelling, “How dare you.” It’s knee-jerk analysis. I call it the Crichton Conundrum: “I’m against it, so these theories must be right—even though the science is most likely bunk.” Shallow, but sadly a reality.

The conundrum is everywhere. Take the $15 minimum wage, a so-called living wage—who could be against that?

WSJ: The Gig’s Up for Freelancers

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gigs-up-for-freelancers-11572208945

I’ll give up my keyboard when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. Didn’t Charlton Heston say that? Don’t tell anyone, but this weekly column may be illegal next year—all because of the latest self-wounding law from the statehouse in Sacramento.

California is so stupid. It was kind of funny when San Francisco’s airport banned plastic water bottles, prompting travelers to guzzle Gatorade instead. It was annoying when supermarkets were forced to charge for plastic bags—and a few folks may catch dysentery from bacteria festering on unwashed reusable burlap bags. Ditto for Berkeley’s ordinance banning natural-gas hookups to eliminate carbon emissions by 2045. It’s Berkeley: They’ll enjoy eating avocado toast while they shiver.

Yet Golden State legislators outdid themselves by passing Assembly Bill 5, signed last month by Gov. Gavin Newsom. Effective Jan. 1, the law reclassifies most independent contractors as full-time employees. This codifies the state Supreme Court’s 2018 Dynamex decision about “misclassified” freelancers.

The new law was pitched as a simple measure to provide contract workers with benefits like sick leave and health care. Yet as the dust clears, many ugly details are emerging. There were lots of carve-outs: for doctors, lawyers, accountants, psychologists, insurance agents like Jake from State Farm. But here’s something weird: Freelance journalists are limited to 35 submissions a year per “putative” employer. Wait, what?

The author of the law is a former labor organizer, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, who you can bet had union help in writing the thing—it’s easier to organize employees than freelancers. Ms. Gonzalez told the Hollywood Reporter her goal is “to protect and preserve good jobs. We’re trying to create new good jobs and a livable, sustainable-wage job.”

And the 35 number?

WSJ: Tech Treadmill Wears Firms Out

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tech-treadmill-wears-firms-out-11571599552

Does technology provide a competitive advantage? Companies are counting on it. In March McDonald’s spent $300 million buying an Israeli artificial-intelligence startup to personalize menus based on weather and trending items. Now they’re considering license-plate recognition systems for drive-through lanes. Based on your history they might offer to supersize your order, or just hand you your usual Happy Meal. CEO Steve Easterbrook says, “Technology is a critical element of our Velocity Growth Plan.”

The problem is that adopting a useful technology doesn’t mean your advantage will last. I’ve long been amused by a succession of Harvard Business Review pieces that demonstrate this point. In 1985 Michael E. Porter wrote “How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage,” then in 1990 came Max Hopper’s “Rattling SABRE—New Ways to Compete on Information,” and finally in 2013 we got Rita Gunther McGrath’s “The End of Competitive Advantage.” Each of these takes describes a different stage in the life cycle of corporate tech.

Hopper was, as Harvard professor James Cash noted, “the first person who really defined the marketing leverage that could come from using technology.” In the late 1950s Hopper helped build Sabre, an automated flight-reservation system, and in 1981 he helped design the first major frequent-flier program to give American Airlines a competitive “AAdvantage.” Yet by 1990 he worried that the game was over, suggesting that technology was “table stakes for competition.” Hopper noted that “SABRE’s real importance to American Airlines was that it prevented an erosion of market share.”

That insight comes to mind watching the Streaming War of 2019. Netflix and Amazon have a huge lead in streaming video. But eventually everyone uses the same technology.

Tim Cook wants in, so Apple TV+ launches Nov. 1 with (probably overpaid) Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon. Robert Iger wants in, and Disney paid (probably too much) for control of BAMTech, the streaming-video technology developed by Major League Baseball, which it is deploying for streaming services Disney+, ESPN+ and Hulu + Live TV. AT&T wants in and paid (again likely too much) for Time Warner to create HBO Max. NBCUniversal wants in too. See the trend? Google ought to rename its streaming service YouTube TV Max+.

Yet when a company adopts a new technology, it can’t set it and forget it.

WSJ: What’s a Wealth Tax Worth?

Follow on Twitter: @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/whats-a-wealth-tax-worth-11570995598

Why do liberals think rich people have money just lying around, like Scrooge McDuck swimming in a giant pool of gold coins? That’s the myth behind plans to tax Americans’ wealth, as Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders both propose.

Ms. Warren wants an annual asset tax of 2% on households worth more than $50 million, and 3% if you’re worth more than $1 billion. Mr. Sanders would tax “extreme wealth” starting at 1% on households worth $32 million and topping out at 8% on those worth $10 billion or more. Whereas the Soviets confiscated wealth virtually overnight, at least Bernie will take a dozen or so years to pilfer most of your savings.

University of California, Berkeley professors Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman estimate that Mr. Sanders’s tax would raise $4.35 trillion over 10 years, while Ms. Warren’s would raise $2.75 trillion. But something seems fishy—oh, Messrs. Saez and Zucman advise both campaigns on their wealth-tax plans. I doubt they account properly for how levies on wealth would shrink the tax base. Can we get some outside audits please?

Even setting comical revenue projections aside, the wealth-tax idea doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Never mind that it’s likely unconstitutional. Or that a wealth tax is triple taxation, heaped on top of a 21% corporate tax plus 20% capital-gains tax when someone sells shares to pay it. (I concede that it definitely would provide lifetime employment for tax lawyers.)

The most preposterous part of the wealth-tax plans is their supporters’ insistence that they would be good for the economy. Only in an upside-down world could anyone think “a wealth tax is pro-growth,” as a New York Times columnist has claimed.

Start with the spending side.

WSJ: An Investment Tip From Mr. ZIP

Follow on Twitter: @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-investment-tip-from-mr-zip-11570393678

Here’s an enduring lesson about investment. In the mid-1990s, well before streaming (2007) or Blu-ray (2003) or even DVRs (1999), I was convinced that every television would someday have an attachment to record and play back shows digitally. Digital videodiscs were available and personal computers had only expensive read-only drives. But I figured drives that also let users burn DVDs would soon take off, so my partner, Fred, and I started scouring Silicon Valley for technology that would benefit.

In the small city of Milpitas—ZIP Code 95035—we stumbled upon a company named Elantec Semiconductor, which had gone public in 1995 at $7 a share. Cowen Inc. and Hambrecht & Quist were the underwriters, for those who remember those days. Don Valentine of Sequoia Capital and Apple Computer fame was the (pedigreed) chairman. It had $30 million or so in revenue but wasn’t really growing. When Fred and I found it, the stock was broken, trading around $3. It had 10 million shares, so it was trading at a lowly one times sales.

We started visiting the company, meeting the CEO and CFO once a month. They told us they had developed a little $2 laser-diode driver that could allow a compact-disc drive to burn data onto a blank disc. Lights flashed in my mind when I heard this: Could their laser driver do the same thing for DVD drives? Someday, I was told, but it would be really expensive. Even so-called CD-R drives for PCs were still $500. Gut check—time to move on? Nah.

We weren’t discouraged. Everything that comes out of Silicon Valley starts out expensive, then sells like hot cakes as costs decline. We were long-term investors—patience was our middle name. So we started buying stock at $3. It started ticking up: $3.13, $3.25, $3.50. We were geniuses! Then we got too busy to buy more shares for a few days and the stock slid back to $3. Turned out we were the ones driving up the thinly traded stock!

So we slowly kept buying shares and continued to visit the company for updates. Elantec’s only competitor for laser-diode drivers was Toshiba, and because Toshiba also sold CD drives, every other Japanese CD company bought from Elantec.

Around the same time, music was becoming available online through MP3 downloads, which Napster had made easy.

WSJ: Silicon Valley Goes Soft

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/silicon-valley-goes-soft-11569785993

I miss Travis Kalanick. Sure, the former Uber CEO was known to attack colleagues in the boardroom and berate his drivers from the back seat. And yes, when I met him in 2013, he was pacing around with a golf club looking as if he wanted to break a window in his conference room.

But he told me the story of when Uber received a cease-and-desist order from the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. Did you cease? I asked. “No.” Did you desist? “No” he repeated, asserting that Uber is perfectly legal, and that the agency didn’t have jurisdiction anyway. That was a bold move—just the kind that Silicon Valley is missing these days.

I’m not condoning the culture that festered under Mr. Kalanick. He famously wrote an email to the “Uber Team” before a Miami off-site meeting in which he advised, among other things: “Do not throw large kegs off of tall buildings.” It isn’t bad advice, but it shows he had a lot of growing up to do—much like the 22-year-old Mark Zuckerberg, whose card read: “I’m CEO, Bitch.” Uber during his tenure was also known for shrugging off sexual-harassment claims. Mr. Kalanick was replaced for a reason.

The problem is that too many in the media don’t distinguish between Uber’s rotten corporate culture and its legitimately bold business practices. Instead both get placed under the same umbrella of “toxic bro culture,“ as if everyone in Silicon Valley is a misogynist Neanderthal strutting around with his baseball cap on backward.

Tragically, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Silicon Valley has gone wussy on us—wait, can I even say “wussy” anymore? The New York Times suggests tech workers are all experiencing “existential dread” and in need of therapy. Bad leadership is to blame.

Everyone is caving in like an overcooked soufflé.

WSJ: Is an M.B.A. Still Worth It?

Follow @andykessler

https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-an-m-b-a-still-worth-it-11569184032

“What year were you?” a Morgan Stanley colleague asked me years ago. “Huh? Year?” I replied. “What year at HBS?” H-B-what? “What year did you graduate from Harvard Business School?” Oh, I get it now. “I didn’t go to HBS,” I told him. “Actually, I don’t have an M.B.A.” After a long pause and scrunched-up face, he asked, “Well, then how the hell did you get a job here?” As I walked away, I murmured under my breath, “Maybe I earned it.”

So should you get a master’s in business administration? These days a lot of people are rethinking that question. Applications are down, even at HBS and GSB (that’s Stanford’s Graduate School of Business—get with the lingo). The number of GMAT test scores sent to two-year, full-time M.B.A. programs has plummeted since 2015. Last year 70% of two-year M.B.A. programs saw declining enrollment; in 2014 it was only one-third. Rats deserting a sinking ship?

Before I really pile on, it’s worth mentioning that there are a few decent reasons to go. The first is pedigree. If you want to get a job on Wall Street or in private equity, you pretty much need an M.B.A.—a golden ticket. But although these jobs pay well, they entail long hours chained to giant monitors. It’s basically the mushroom treatment: Higher-ups will keep you in a dark room and constantly throw, let’s just say, manure on you.

Another reason to go is the networking (it only takes a couple of drinks for most graduates to admit this was their main draw). Business school is a great place to meet other up-and-coming climbers to get pulled up by, or better yet, pass on your way to the executive floor, bathroom key included. I constantly meet people who studied with former Microsoft CEO and GSB dropout Steve Ballmer. The final reason to go to B-school is that you might actually learn something—like how to do macros in Excel.

But—you knew this was coming—man oh man is it expensive. HBS tuition is now $73,440 a year. Total costs are estimated at $110,740 if you’re single and more than 150 grand if you’re married with two children. That excludes the cost of your MacBook, let alone forgone wages. You’d better get that Wall Street job.

I’ve dug into the curricula at dozens of M.B.A. programs, from Booth to Kellogg to Fuqua.

WSJ: Antitrust Can’t Catch Big Tech

https://www.wsj.com/articles/antitrust-cant-catch-big-tech-11568577387

On Friday the House Judiciary Committee joined the dog pile of 48 state attorneys general, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission in investigating whether to break up the Big Bad Tech companies. It all makes me think of a Hangtown Fry, my favorite dish at the Tadich Grill in San Francisco. During the Gold Rush, a prisoner condemned to death could request a final meal. To delay the hangman, a smart prisoner would order an omelet with bacon and oysters, meaning someone had to head down to the coast for ingredients, which could take weeks or months. Delicious, by the way.

Any action to break up Google, Facebook and others is, like that Hangtown Fry, going to take a very long time to happen, if it happens at all. The first antitrust suit against IBM was filed in 1968. The U.S. government dismissed all antitrust cases against IBM as “without merit” in 1982. AT&T , an actual government-mandated monopoly, faced its first antitrust suit in 1974. It settled through a consent decree in 1982, with the Bell telephone system breaking into Baby Bells. Yet unlike Humpty Dumpty, the market put AT&T mostly back together again, with it and Verizon going strong in wireless—a field few foresaw at the time of the breakup.

After all the saber-rattling and congressional hearings, to succeed in court antitrust advocates will have to demonstrate that tech companies’ actions are harming consumers. Yes, the FTC recently penalized Facebook for privacy violations, but its antitrust investigation is aimed at countering potentially anticompetitive practices, an entirely different matter. The rather weak case from the director of the FTC’s competition bureau is that Facebook bought startups “that might ultimately unseat them,” which the director says may violate the commission’s “theory of competitive harm.” Theory indeed.

The Justice Department is more gung-ho. Its antitrust enforcer Makan Delrahim declared, “Without the discipline of meaningful market-based competition, digital platforms may act in ways that are not responsive to consumer demands.” Note that Mr. Delrahim uses the weasel word “may”—which is to say the tech companies may ignore consumer demands, but then again they may not. Mr. Delrahim is hinting at regulators’ dream: forward-looking antitrust analysis.

Mr. Delrahim and the crystal-ball gazers at Justice and the FTC think they have a perfect view of the future, so they want to break up companies before they commit any offense. They’re channeling Tom Cruise in “Minority Report,” in which cops use a psychic technology to catch murderers before they commit crimes.

Unfortunately for the Justice Department, current antitrust law is based on evidence of actual consumer harm and not mere speculation about what could happen in the future. A sharp legal mind tells me, “The key is the degree of certainty with which the government can prove the future harm is likely to happen.” Justice can pull a minority report on companies contemplating mergers—note how T-Mobile and Sprint had to give up business to get their deal done—but not antitrust.

So has Big Tech squashed competition? Hmmm, let’s see.

WSJ: The Fed Can’t See Its Own Shadow

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fed-cant-see-its-own-shadow-11567969957

What’s going on with the bond market, especially what the Journal has called “the relentless demand for longer-term debt securities”? Over the past few weeks 30-year bonds yielded less than 2% interest. That inverted the yield curve as short-term rates were higher, including the rate on repurchase agreements and what the Federal Reserve pays on excess reserves.

Should we blame the usual suspects—a weakening global economy and trade wars? Not so fast. Sometimes it helps to look at things differently. “There’s a dollar shortage,” Jeffrey Snider of Alhambra Investments tells me. “The market knows what’s going on and further knows the Fed doesn’t.”

For more than a decade the Fed furiously expanded its balance sheet through quantitative easing, buying Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities and then paying interest on excess reserves to soak up all the extra money in the banking system. The Fed’s assets increased from less than $1 trillion in September 2008 to almost $3.8 trillion today. Sadly, the stimulus hasn’t stimulated very much. What went wrong? Maybe the shadow knows.

Shadow banking, that is. That’s the market for repurchase agreements, or “repos,” a form of short-term borrowing. Mr. Snider calls it “collateralized interbank borrowing.” One party puts up collateral such as a bond, and is paid for the value of that asset on the promise to buy it back later at a higher price. It can be overnight, 90 days or more. Often that collateral is lent out again, creating a money supply outside traditional fractional-reserve banking. It’s huge—today nonbank lenders hold more total assets than traditional banks do.

But shadow banking has issues. In times of stress, the repo market demands better or “pristine” collateral, usually longer-term U.S. debt, of which there often isn’t enough. In 2013 I wrote about a shortage of collateral for the repo market and how Fed buying was squeezing the shadow banking system. Mr. Snider recalls the moment as well: “They were stripping the repo market of the best collateral as well as lesser-traded issues. They still had to buy up repo collateral to keep up the ruse that they were ‘printing money’ they weren’t.” The lack of inflation is proof that the total money supply has barely grown.

That shadow-banking crisis resolved as demand for pristine collateral eased, but today the collateral squeeze has returned at a much larger scale.

WSJ: The Market Gets What It Wants

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-market-gets-what-it-wants-11566755407

Are you talking to me? The market dropped 767 points Aug. 5 on news of China’s currency devaluation, then popped 311 points the next day on delayed tariffs, then sank 800 points eight days later after signs that the yield curve had inverted further. It’s been yo-yoing since then—up 275, down 623 on Friday. When the stock market goes through these spasmatic gyrations, it’s a desperate cry for attention. But what is it trying to say? Ya got trouble, with a capital T.

We had a great economy going. Tax cuts had led to 50-year-low unemployment, rising corporate profits, and a growth rate nearing 4%—almost twice the anemic level it hovered at during the Obama years. But like an “own goal” in soccer, the Navarro-Lighthizer-Mnuchin tariffs scored one for chaos, and now the stock market is reacting. Until recently the market was pretty silent on trade. Could the recent drop be its loud call to end tariffs?

President Trump delayed some of his Sept. 1 tariffs until Dec. 15, including those on iPhones and laptops, and the market traded up. But the tariff burden is still onerous, and stocks dropped again in sync with the bond market as 30-year Treasurys dropped below 2%, their lowest rate since . . . ever. This flight to safety may indicate structural problems in credit markets, triggered by tariffs. But it’s almost as if the bond market is demanding the Fed cut rates in September, or else. Why should the stock market do all the talking?

It reminds me of Sept. 29, 2008, when the House voted down a $700 billion financial rescue package after the Lehman Brothers implosion. The market dropped 777 points, losing $1.2 trillion in value, the first time more than $1 trillion was lost in a day. Congress got the message. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act passed five days later and was quickly signed into law by President George W. Bush.

The market gets what it wants. Facebook traded down after its initial public offering because of concerns that it lacked a mobile strategy—then it quickly got one. Uber laid off 400 employees to try to stem its post-IPO slide, but the stock has kept declining, so expect even more layoffs. And it doesn’t take a crystal ball to see the day within a year of WeWork’s IPO that their stock sells off and they finally change their squishy cash-soaking business model. This is what public markets are good at: creating urgency.

Sure, this makes the stock market sound like a stubborn bratty child throwing a hissy fit. And that’s basically right.

WSJ: What Will California Ban Next?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-will-california-ban-next-11566158511

First they came for our plastic grocery bags. Then they came for our plastic straws. Now they’ve come for our plastic water bottles at SFO. Yes, you read that right. Starting Tuesday, the sale of plastic water bottles will be banned at San Francisco International Airport, one of the few places they actually make sense. California has many dumb laws and statutes and bans, but this one is especially brainless—spurred by futile self-righteousness.

After running late for your flight after a 30-minute security line only to have TSA confiscate your Fiji water bottle, you’ll now have to stop at a crowded water fountain to fill your own metal flask. Or buy an overpriced glass or aluminum bottle at the concession stand, paying another 10 cents for a bag. And your teeth will chatter if you drink through a paper straw. Of course you could risk dehydration instead: Men lose up to a half-gallon of water during a 10-hour flight. Oddly, you can still buy sugary drinks in plastic bottles at SFO; only healthy, calorie-free water is banned in plastic. You can’t make this stuff up.

Other fields are even worse. Starting next year, the California Building Standards Commission will require every new home to have solar panels. This will add $8,400 to the average cost of the state’s already expensive homes. With a shortage of about 1.4 million housing units, according to the California Housing Partnership, that’s a $12 billion unfunded mandate.

But maybe the housing shortage can be solved with yet another legislative “fix.” Last December state Sen. Scott Wiener introduced Senate Bill 50, which would allow developers to ignore certain local zoning laws within half a mile of train or subway stations and some bus stops. The bill would allow five-story buildings, high density and massive parking structures. Although the bill was tabled in May, many of its growing group of supporters argued it didn’t do enough to create incentives for affordable housing. That tells me another version of this bill will pass eventually. So here’s what may happen: Many towns will preserve local zoning pre-emptively by closing their train stations. Lose-lose situation.

So what? you might ask: Just take an Uber or Lyft. Not so fast. Also winding its way through Sacramento is Assembly Bill 5, which would reclassify “gig economy” workers as employees, entitled to full benefits and a $12 minimum wage. This means the cost of rides, deliveries and even manicures would go up, up, up. The bill is an overreach because most drivers truly are temporary workers. According to the delivery company Postmates, half of delivery workers quit after 80 days and about 45% work less than nine hours a week. Once again California legislators are trying for a trifecta: Fix a problem that may not exist, kill a very Californian innovation, and damage the employment prospects of the same workers they are trying to protect.

There’s more. Proposition 64, passed in 2016, allows Californians to grow six pot plants at home. Why not seven?

WSJ: Social Media and Hawley’s Folly

https://www.wsj.com/articles/social-media-and-hawleys-folly-11565551761

What does Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley have against Silicon Valley? On July 31 he tweeted (as opposed to sending by Pony Express) “Social media ‘innovation’? What innovation? Big Tech doesn’t deliver for the American people, and that’s the biggest problem of all.” The previous day the senator introduced S.2314, the Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act, which would smother with a giant pillow the innovation he claims not to see. Be warned: Regulation may soon arrive in Techland.

Who is this guy—and why does he think he can micromanage a trillion-dollar industry? Born in Arkansas and bred in the Show Me State, Mr. Hawley graduated from Stanford, then Yale Law. He became Missouri’s attorney general in 2017 and began investigating the classified-ad website Backpage. The site sued to stop the investigation, lost, and then Mr. Hawley sued it back. He was thwarted in gathering information by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which I wrote about last month; the provision defines certain online services as platforms, not liable for the content their users post. The episode may have stoked Mr. Hawley’s disdain for social media and Big Tech. He also opened an antitrust investigation into Google the same year.

This antitech inclination hasn’t always defined Mr. Hawley’s persona. As attorney general he said, “American workers and American entrepreneurs can compete with anybody, anywhere if our government will stop making America a cost-prohibitive place to do business.” Hear, hear. When he won his Senate seat last year he ran mostly as a conventional conservative.

But even then he already had his enemies marked. His first Senate speech lamented the “cold and judgmental world of social media,” and things kind of went downhill from there. He even wrote a letter to Mark Zuckerberg more or less describing Facebook as one of the “forces parasitic on our national life.” Ouch.

Mr. Hawley’s new bill has all the worst instincts of the regulatory state—a disappointing achievement coming from a Republican. It would remove the autoplay feature from YouTube, end infinite scrolling on Twitter and Facebook feeds, limit scrolling time to three-minute sessions, set default limits on the use of platforms to 30 minutes a day, and outlaw Snapchat streaks (rewards for consecutive days of contact with friends) and most “gamification” (badges, rewards) for any online service. These diktats are the opposite of market freedom.

WSJ: Have No Fear of Facial Recognition

https://www.wsj.com/articles/have-no-fear-of-facial-recognition-11564955494

Englishman Francis Galton first noted the unique arches, loops and whorls in our fingerprints back in the 1880s. Thirty years later, Clarence Hiller confronted an intruder in his Chicago home and was fatally shot. The culprit fled, but not before leaving a fingerprint in fresh paint on a railing. Thomas Jennings became the first defendant convicted using fingerprints as evidence. This is now routine, but back then there was public hysteria over the fingerprint’s invasion of privacy and then questionable accuracy.

Today, with faces matched almost instantly via machine learning and artificial intelligence, fears of Big Brother have created similar hysteria—especially after Georgetown legal scholars discovered last month that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has access to driver’s license photos from 21 states.

So much so that the crime-ridden cities of San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., along with Somerville, Mass., have banned the use of facial recognition by law enforcement, even though local businesses can use it to track who enters and leaves their buildings. Pretty crazy.

Paranoid? Is someone watching you? Let’s get some constitutional rights out of the way first, especially “unreasonable searches and seizures.” In Katz v. U.S. (1967), the Federal Bureau of Investigation used an electronic eavesdropping device, attached to the outside of a phone booth, to record the defendant’s gambling transactions. Charles Katz won and the Supreme Court ruled that in a phone booth, “like a home, and unlike a field, a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.” On the flip side, the justices held that “what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.”

But we are still protected against dragnets (dum du dum dum)—the use of cameras or other surveillance to track collectively where everyone goes and what they do. Even in public, where you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, law enforcement can’t record everything in hope that someone commits a crime. The USA Patriot Act weakened some of these protections, but the 2015 USA Freedom Act fixed that.

There’s added hysteria around the potential bias in facial recognition’s mistakes.

WSJ: Great Books for a Brainwashing

https://www.wsj.com/articles/great-books-for-a-brainwashing-11564337511

It’s that time of year again. Soon-to-be college freshmen are whooping it up before being shaped into adults—cruising to Whataburger in mom’s Prius, sneaking cans of ruby grapefruit White Claw Hard Seltzer. Soon it will be goodbye to innocence and hello to an exciting new adventure. But first there’s—ugh—your summer reading assignment.

I’m all for reading, but when I dug around to see what books were assigned this year, I was thunderstruck. The selections are clearly intended to make new students “woke”—a push toward political awareness, an initiation into the cool social-justice league.

Stanford’s “signature common reading program” has two books and a collection of essays this summer. The first is “There There,” a novel set in Oakland about the “plight of the urban Native American.” It’s always troubling to see the word “plight”—you know you’re about to be manipulated.

The next book on Stanford’s list is “Silicon City: San Francisco in the Long Shadow of the Valley.” Uh oh, long shadows sound ominous. Sure enough, the author informs us that San Fran is rich, unequal and un-diverse, with “rapid gentrification, an epidemic of evictions, rising crime, atrophied public institutions.” Wasn’t Gavin Newsom mayor? Worse, it’s “a cautionary tale for the entire country.” Wait, shouldn’t students be focusing on the Bay Area’s unbounded success in driving the global economy by making productive tools that have lifted billions out of poverty? Of course not, because that nasty, long shadow obscures “the birthplace of the Beats, the Black Panthers, and the LGBTQ movement.” The message to students is that if you win, you lose.

The last item is an e-book (saving paper!): “The Just City Essays: 26 Visions for Urban Equity, Inclusivity and Opportunity.” I’m sure the first two or three essays are enough to get the “sustainable, equitable future” point across.

Yale is not to be outdone.

WSJ: Better Living Through Simulations

https://www.wsj.com/articles/better-living-through-simulations-11563738861

What was Neil Armstrong thinking about as he stepped on the moon? His first words were rehearsed, and he still blew it: “That’s one small step for man” he said, meaning to say “a man.” He then talked about how powdery the soil on the surface seemed. And then this: “There seems to be no difficulty in moving around as we suspected. It’s even perhaps easier than the simulations at one-sixth g that we performed in the various simulations on the ground.”

Armstrong was doing something no one had ever done before, but he was struck by how different it was from the simulations of doing something no one had ever done before. In other words, he was so well-prepared that the only shock was that the experience was somewhat off from what he had been trained to expect. Amazing—and a preview of today. The rest of us would have been jumping with glee like kids in a bouncy castle, unlike the cool, calm and collected Armstrong, who had taken multiple flights in a KC-135 jet to simulate low gravity.

Simulations helped create the computer industry. The first U.S. computer, the Eniac, ran statistical simulations for hydrogen-bomb blasts—not something you can test in the lab. Every chip in your personal computer and phone is simulated well before it is manufactured in billion-dollar fabrication plants. Simulating weather patterns has led to better though never perfect forecasts.

Commercial airline pilots log hours in simulators practicing situations, like hitting a flock of seagulls, that they’ll hopefully never face in real life. So do soldiers, surgeons, nurses—even truck drivers. Add cheap virtual-reality goggles, and all sorts of training can be enhanced, from tricky manufacturing to firefighting and law enforcement.

Simulations can be useful for nearly every product being designed today. Cars have long been tested in wind tunnels and crash labs, but most of that experimentation can now be digitally simulated before the prototype is ever built. Bridges and buildings are now modeled and run through worst-case scenarios before plans are completed. Design, simulate, fix, simulate again and roll out.

WSJ: Lessons From a Trip to the Moon

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lessons-from-a-trip-to-the-moon-11563137910

“It’s a 1202. What is that?”

Fifty years ago this Saturday, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were 30,000 feet above the moon and descending in the lunar module. Behind their seats was the 70-pound Apollo Guidance Computer, with 2,800 Fairchild Semiconductor integrated circuits, each containing two logic gates and running at a speed of 43 kilohertz. It was programmed for the physics of a lunar landing, able to read data like speed, angle, altitude and fuel remaining. But a warning horn sounded. Mr. Aldrin typed 5-9-Enter on a keypad and the machine displayed the error code “1202.” In all their simulations in Houston—so many the “abort” button label practically rubbed off—they had never seen a 1202. So Armstrong asked.

Each program in the guidance computer used a 12-word, 16-bit data-storage unit known as a Core Set. The system had handled countless complicated tasks through the takeoff, approach and orbit, but something had gone wrong during the landing attempt. Turns out a radar used to track the Command Module was overrunning the Core Sets with bad data. Fortunately, the guidance computer had been designed to crash and reboot when that happened, and not lose data so it could continue its guidance function.

Imagine sitting in a tin can, about to make history, trusting a computer with your life, already white-knuckled, and getting the early equivalent of the Microsoft Blue Screen of Death. Each time the alarm sounded, the display went blank for 10 seconds as the computer crashed and rebooted. There were five alarms and crashes in four minutes, the last at 2,000 feet. With no clear sign of any systems malfunctioning, the astronauts and Mission Control scrambled to make sense. Armstrong’s heart rate hit 150. The display finally returned 800 feet above the lunar surface. Noting no data was lost, the flight controller in Houston, Charlie Duke, replied, “Eagle, looking great. You’re GO.”

There are many lessons from Apollo 11, and you’ll hear them all week. First, timing is everything: Inspired by John F. Kennedy, all six lunar landings occurred during Richard Nixon’s first term. Another obvious and overlooked lesson is that technology is an indispensable yet imperfect tool. I’ve had my iPhone crash trying to hail an Uber. I know, First World problem.

Apollo 11 was a source of pride, but also confusion. Whenever hurricanes and other freaky weather hit in the ’70s, my grandmother would explain it by insisting, “They touched something up there on the moon.” Sadly, climate thinking hasn’t advanced much.

People often ask whether space exploration is worth the cost. I’ve certainly been in and out of the “We went to the moon and all we got were Velcro and Tang” camp. Doubters now insist the money should have been spent to fight poverty in inner cities.

WSJ: The Key to the Long Expansion? Logistics

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-key-to-the-long-expansion-logistics-11562526973

“You can’t recommend those stocks,” a Wall Street strategist insisted in 1986. “We’re in the third year of a four-year expansion. They won’t work.” Being naive, I did it anyway. The expansion lasted a total of almost eight years, until July 1990. Strategists don’t know much, but to be fair, it was a B-school accepted truth that expansions last four years. Another expansion began in 1991 and lasted a record 10 years. And this month we broke that record. Since June 2009, the U.S. economy has kept growing. Every day is another record.

Did you ever wonder why we are enjoying a decadelong run? What changed? Everyone wants credit. Was it the Federal Reserve and its relentless stimulus? Nope. The Fed creates the money the economy needs, but not the need itself. Obama or Trump policies? A divided Congress? Demographic shifts? A strong or weak dollar? Actually, none of the above. The answer is just-in-time. You can thank all those freshly minted consultants you see in premium economy crisscrossing the country with their AirPods and Allbirds and airy attitudes.

In the previous era, before pervasive computing, economies would live and die by inventory cycles. Heck, biblical times record seven years of feast and seven of famine. The expansion starts, consumers buy, investment and hiring ramp up, wages and prices rise, inflation emerges, consumers buy ahead of price increases, investment peaks, inventories build, consumers are tapped out, recession starts, inventories are drawn down, and layoffs begin—then start all over every four years. Until recently, price signals didn’t travel very fast, and inventory tracking used clipboards.

In a micro version of this cycle, the videogame industry had a huge bonanza in the early 1980s that ended in ’83 with bust of the highly anticipated “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial” game. Warner Communications literally buried about 700,000 unsold cartridges of “E.T.” and other titles, and lost more than $500 million. The semiconductor industry got stuck with loads of chips in inventory that had to be written down. It was ugly. After a similar inventory mess related to then-newfangled personal computers, the tech world started implementing just-in-time delivery. Companies like Compaq would ask for chips to be delivered Tuesday for PCs shipped on Wednesday. This gradually smoothed out the cycles of a very volatile industry.

Thirty-six years later, much of the global economy has perfected this just-in-time supply chain. Digital cash registers and bar codes log consumer purchases. Logistics software allows manufacturers to track every production detail everywhere on the globe. Data is fed into giant databases that forecast demand. Manufacturing, transportation and retail are a highly choreographed water ballet of delivering inventory right before it’s needed. Exactly the right amount of toothpaste is magically dropped onto Walmart shelves each night.

WSJ: Kill Section 230, You Kill the Internet

https://www.wsj.com/articles/kill-section-230-you-kill-the-internet-11561924578

The internet was almost killed in its cradle. Will it happen again? In October 1994, an anonymous poster on Money Talk, a bulletin board run by the early online service Prodigy, accused Long Island brokerage firm Stratton Oakmont of fraud. Yes, that Stratton Oakmont, of Leonardo DiCaprio and “Wolf of Wall Street” movie fame. Fraud central. But in 1995 Stratton Oakmont sued Prodigy for defamation. The firm claimed the online service was liable as a publisher because Prodigy posted content guidelines that human “board leaders” enforced and deployed software that screened for offensive language. Sound familiar?

Amazingly, Prodigy lost the case. This prompted Congress to insert language into the Communications Decency Act of 1996, known as Section 230: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

That’s all it took to enable the online world as we know it today. Online companies can claim they are a bunch of disk drives and, with few exceptions, innocently passing along whatever their users post on them. Without Section 230, tort lawyers would have smothered the internet. Facebook , Twitter and Google today would be Little Tech—if they existed at all.

Section 230 also allows companies to restrict content that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” With these “community standards,” online companies can remove anything and can’t be sued.

There’s a wide lane between moderating hate speech (Facebook Live of Christchurch shooting) and crippling free speech (banning conservative voices). OK, but Facebook and the like are often governed by the court of public opinion, with its varying views on fake news, identity politics and political meddling. Seems lots of folks are triggered by what they see online. But Facebook, YouTube and Twitter’s community standards are murky and vague and seem to change daily, so the dogpile to regulate or even break up tech giants grows, with the addition of new bodies across the spectrum from Elizabeth Warren to Ted Cruz.

Are online companies publishers? Should Section 230 be repealed? Heck no.