Josh, you are underestimating the quality of European appliances. I'm an American living in Italy, and though I concede ventless dryers* take longer and sometimes things don't come out bone-dry, the only other difference is that they're generally smaller than their American equivalents.
*Vented american-style dryers are available here, but most people choose to not buy them. I've been told they are growing popularity among wealthier people living in detached houses.
Really enjoyed this episode, but I think you were wrong in your (very minor!) aside about American appliances being better than European ones. My Bosch induction range, dishwasher, and washer/dryer stack are waaaaaaaay better than the American ones (KitchenAid, Maytag) I had before.
This pains me a bit because I believe that both of these US brands are or were at one time owned by Whirlpool, a company that (at least at one point) was based in my home state of Michigan. They still have operations there, but I'm not sure whether the HQ is still in St. Joe/its vicinity.
Well, I recently had to buy appliances for a (much-delayed) renovation, and they are, unfortunately, very expenisve right now! It's understandable that people of any nationality would hesitate to buy these particular nice things!
Interesting conversation, I agree with you that people will still put money toward their values though - as someone who thinks climate change is bad, I just bought a house and plan to pay more for an electric lawnmower and support innovation instead of paying less for a gas one.
No charities exist to effectively combat climate change (I could donate to Amy McGrath or whoever I guess, but I believe that setting money on fire creates carbon emissions), and I’ll get utility whenever I click on an NYT or WSJ article about battery innovations or whatever since I know my money is supporting that. ESG’s are scammy, although I find it ironic that most people who hate ESG’s are crypto supporters when that’s an even scammier product that plays just as much off of ideological forces (libertarian in this case)
I liked the episode, which I listened to today along with a Dispatch podcast, which discussed Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. The podcast was focused around an author who was rightfully horrified by China's treatment of the ethnic and religious minority population, along with the process of getting the unlikely legislation through congress.
But listening to the two podcasts back-to-back raised a question that I would be interested in your take on, or finding someone to talk about it with. The sanctions will be inflationary (both on supply side and there is an increased regulatory compliance cost). Sanctions have a very poor track record of encouraging other countries not to engage in horrendous human rights abuse, and potentially prolongs suffering by creating a "rally around the flag" in the effected country and can lead to further crackdowns on dissent. What is the best argument that these sanctions on China will be effective in changing behavior? Is there a moral case that participating in commerce with a country or region engaged in human rights abuse makes us complicit even if refusing to participate does not benefit the effected minority group while also hurting the populace at large? How does this compare and contrast to ESG investing?
If unit profitability is high in a market large enough to eventually build a large business, losing money during the growth phase is actually very rational. The failed Millennial Lifestyle businesses either a) haven't yet built a large business, so the variable unit profits never exceeded the fixed overhead, or b) they had negative unit economics and shouldn't ever have existed like you describe.
The reason it all happened overnight is that the (a) companies need to actually go out and get the cash from investors every so often to keep operating. When stocks cratered basically overnight, nobody was willing to give it to them any more, so they have a lot less time to grow into their overhead.
Thus, to survive, they are cutting costs overnight to extend the time they have to grow into their fixed costs. Some simply won't be able to do it in time. So a lot of the companies / products / services will just go away, even some that have legitimate business models.
Josh, you are underestimating the quality of European appliances. I'm an American living in Italy, and though I concede ventless dryers* take longer and sometimes things don't come out bone-dry, the only other difference is that they're generally smaller than their American equivalents.
*Vented american-style dryers are available here, but most people choose to not buy them. I've been told they are growing popularity among wealthier people living in detached houses.
Really enjoyed this episode, but I think you were wrong in your (very minor!) aside about American appliances being better than European ones. My Bosch induction range, dishwasher, and washer/dryer stack are waaaaaaaay better than the American ones (KitchenAid, Maytag) I had before.
This pains me a bit because I believe that both of these US brands are or were at one time owned by Whirlpool, a company that (at least at one point) was based in my home state of Michigan. They still have operations there, but I'm not sure whether the HQ is still in St. Joe/its vicinity.
Many fine appliances are *made* in Europe. Maybe Europeans should start buying them!
Well, I recently had to buy appliances for a (much-delayed) renovation, and they are, unfortunately, very expenisve right now! It's understandable that people of any nationality would hesitate to buy these particular nice things!
Interesting conversation, I agree with you that people will still put money toward their values though - as someone who thinks climate change is bad, I just bought a house and plan to pay more for an electric lawnmower and support innovation instead of paying less for a gas one.
No charities exist to effectively combat climate change (I could donate to Amy McGrath or whoever I guess, but I believe that setting money on fire creates carbon emissions), and I’ll get utility whenever I click on an NYT or WSJ article about battery innovations or whatever since I know my money is supporting that. ESG’s are scammy, although I find it ironic that most people who hate ESG’s are crypto supporters when that’s an even scammier product that plays just as much off of ideological forces (libertarian in this case)
Josh,
I liked the episode, which I listened to today along with a Dispatch podcast, which discussed Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. The podcast was focused around an author who was rightfully horrified by China's treatment of the ethnic and religious minority population, along with the process of getting the unlikely legislation through congress.
But listening to the two podcasts back-to-back raised a question that I would be interested in your take on, or finding someone to talk about it with. The sanctions will be inflationary (both on supply side and there is an increased regulatory compliance cost). Sanctions have a very poor track record of encouraging other countries not to engage in horrendous human rights abuse, and potentially prolongs suffering by creating a "rally around the flag" in the effected country and can lead to further crackdowns on dissent. What is the best argument that these sanctions on China will be effective in changing behavior? Is there a moral case that participating in commerce with a country or region engaged in human rights abuse makes us complicit even if refusing to participate does not benefit the effected minority group while also hurting the populace at large? How does this compare and contrast to ESG investing?
If unit profitability is high in a market large enough to eventually build a large business, losing money during the growth phase is actually very rational. The failed Millennial Lifestyle businesses either a) haven't yet built a large business, so the variable unit profits never exceeded the fixed overhead, or b) they had negative unit economics and shouldn't ever have existed like you describe.
The reason it all happened overnight is that the (a) companies need to actually go out and get the cash from investors every so often to keep operating. When stocks cratered basically overnight, nobody was willing to give it to them any more, so they have a lot less time to grow into their overhead.
Thus, to survive, they are cutting costs overnight to extend the time they have to grow into their fixed costs. Some simply won't be able to do it in time. So a lot of the companies / products / services will just go away, even some that have legitimate business models.
My thought is ..... "finally".
Just wish we didn't have to get there this way