| Move fast and break things - the political cost | ||
| Many of today’s entrepreneurs live by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s now-famous maxim: “Move fast and break things.” This described the race to put products into consumers’ hands as fast as possible, often without regard to their quality. It was a description of how things happened in the field of software, often released before it was perfected or even close to what the customer could reasonably hope for. As a result, the product was then subject to innumerable ‘updates’, patches needed to correct the errors in the original programming, as well as gradually to give it the functionality expected by the user. This took place in a competitive market where most other software producers were following the same rule-book. In the world of Microsoft it meant that its operating system frequently failed leaving only the blue screen of death as the clue to what had happened. This was followed by the only solution – Control/Alt/Delete – and a loss of data. Over many years, things have gradually improved, but there has always been a habit of overestimating the reliability and accuracy of software products. The biggest example of its failure in the UK must surely be the Horizon accounts system produced for the Post Office by Fujitsu. We all now know that it was full of errors, errors which were deliberately hidden from view and created fictitious debit balances Granted its chequered origins, I’m not quite sure therefore why ‘Move fast and break things’ has gone from being a factual description of how things were done in the Tech Bros sector of the economy to a rallying cry – something which we should regard as desirable in all circumstances. It’s worth noting that the maxim had its origin in a sector which was then in its infancy and so where the rules were having to be made up as they went along. Now, many years later when it has gained a large degree of maturity, we are seeing that many have made small and big fortunes from their early investment. Many of course lost their shirts, but we don’t notice them. I would suggest therefore that its association with very visible wealth has been the main reason for popularity of what has become a successful meme. If it worked for them, then some of its glamour and success may rub off on us, however remote our particular area of expertise may be from Silicon Valley. That this is a silly rationale is rather obvious. Take my own profession: to give clients advice which is only fairly accurate would hardly impress. Even less would it impress our indemnity insurers who would withdraw cover. Since 20 January the maxim has been even more absurdly applied to American state institutions. And it has been done by minions brought in by the chief of the Tech Bros. Without any lawful authority, save for the fiat of Trump the Magnificent, they have gone into the depths of the computer systems designed to enable the government to make the payments authorised by Congress and have taken direct control of who receives what. They have prevented payments to groups and organisations which were on the Trumpian black list even though lawfully entitled to receive those funds. They have sacked people on a whim and then had to rehire them; they have vastly overstated the savings they claim to have made in their drive to cut waste. When challenged in the courts various fanciful legal theories have been advanced to justify their actions, so far without any significant buy-in even by the Trump appointees. All of this is though mainly to achieve a reduction in the size of the state, an article of faith for these particular zealots. Over Trump’s 4 year term, undoubtedly the size of the state will have been reduced. At that point the American people may be able to see what the abolished departments were there for and to what degree they used to be of benefit to the average Joe. By then though it is also likely that the picture will have become very confused, making it difficult to unpick what is cause and what is effect. But what of Mr Tech Bro himself? He has built a company worth more than a trillion dollars on the back of electric vehicles. The share price is now (10 March 2025) $227 after a pre Christmas high point of $480 with most of the fall coming since the inauguration of the Dumpster and the involvement of Musk in running the government. And all this against a background of guarantees to Musk's bankers based mainly on the value of Tesla. But the Tesla share price valuation is vastly in excess of, say, Toyota which is actually far more profitable. Tesla says that it sells electric vehicles and industrial scale batteries, but the investors seem to see its potential in the field of AI and therefore autonomous vehicles. The reliability of those vehicles, particularly the Cybertruck, is increasingly in question, however, and so it looks as though some of the shine is coming off it. Tesla is leading the way in the latest falls on the New York stock exchange. When the banks will react is the interesting question. Trump's hyperloop company has raised a billion dollars but without, as far as I know, there being any actual construction activity. And of course we have SpaceX, which will enable people to go on a suicide mission to Mars. As for X, well... And lastly there’s his satellite network, Starlink, designed to enable people to have internet access where there is no other practicable means of connection. But this is a network now being used for political purposes. He can shut it off for countries he doesn’t like – and so it is being seen increasingly as unreliable, giving other less politically-driven companies the opportunity to boost their share of the market at Starlink’s expense. There is even pressure on the Italian government to sign up to the French system, Eutelsat, instead. How embarrassing for La Meloni. Mr Strumpf has decided to break things by upending the established world order including, as of this week, the imposition of world-wide tariffs on steel and aluminium imports. America gets 40% of its steel from Canada and Mexico. America produces even less aluminium, importing nearly all of its requirements from Canada. According to Marco Rubio, their policy is to encourage the expansion of the production of steel and aluminium in the USA. To become self-sufficient. This is a little difficult to believe in the context of an explicit wish to inflict pain on America’s closest neighbours, but will this actually damage the exporter countries any time soon? What you cannot do is buy furnaces off the shelf. Last year, Tata closed its steel smelting plant in Port Talbot in order to replace it with more efficient electric arc furnaces. They are expected to be working in early 2028 - a lead time of at least three years. Granted Trump’s vacillation over the imposition of tariffs, no-one is likely to make such a major investment in the USA any time soon. And until they actually have the plants in production, and probably for some time afterwards, someone will have to pay the tariffs on the steel and aluminium still being imported. And I can’t see why it would be Canada or Mexico. Which means that the American economy will suffer instead. Trump told the faithful that during his presidency their standard of living would increase. The attack on government institutions has already resulted in very many people losing their jobs both directly and indirectly. And now he is actually suggesting that his own policies may well produce a ‘short-term’ recession as the price of realigning how the country works and so ‘Make America Great Again’. What most America electors are interested in however is how well-off they feel – Bill Clinton’s “It’s the economy stupid”. But time moves on and now we have its replacement - the infamous ‘Price of Eggs’ test. And the latest Marie-Antoinette inspired government solution? “Let them keep chickens”. 11 March 2025 Paul Buckingham |
||
|
|