I’m not one to be swayed by grand macro-historical theories; I see them as akin to spotting random shapes in the clouds. My skepticism comes from observing the gritty details of present-day geopolitics and power dynamics. When an established order like the American-led rules-based system is in decline and there’s no clear, widely accepted successor on the horizon, it tends to usher in a period of volatility, not tranquility. Some might daydream about a more peaceful world without the supposed ‘antagonist’ of the current order, but the nuances of international relations suggest otherwise. Bottom line: a world in flux is rarely a peaceful one.

What of my own normative arguments do you think I'm not self-aware of? I'd be happy to address them for you.

I'm convinced the most powerful insight that one can have, in order to see the world in the most a dispassionate analytical lens possible, is to fundamentally come to understand where value-judgements enter our human arguments and understanding about the world. These things are what philosophers call normative arguments.

They are everywhere in your thinking.

Every argument you make about politics, economics and culture, has a normative argument hiding in there. No matter how "evidenced-based" or "objective" you think the position is.

When you learn to parse for that, you immediately see through a lot of the narrative-based reasoning traps that people fall into.

But still, no matter how analytical you are, you're going to have to show up with your own normative arguments, yourself. But being aware of them is critical to intellectual honesty.

Yes. I'm way more concerned about this spiraling than Ukraine. The cultural and religious caché of the Israel-Palestine conflict creates serious destabilizing cleavages. The fact that Iran likely funded, trained and provided weapons for this. The fact Russia is an Iranian ally. The fact Erdogan in Turkey is Hamas-sympathetic. The fact that Israel was about to consummate a deal for normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia, which probably is over now. The fact Hezbollah just fired rockets at Israeli settlements from Lebanon. The ways this conflict stressed the global security situation is ... deeply concerning.

America is not an empire. But its strength in relative terms has declined due to the rise of other power centers. That said, the end of the unipolar moment will lead to instability.

What doesn't make sense?

Well, it's an empirical question at the end of the day. I'll either be right or I'll be wrong. I think a lot of people are hopelessly naive and wandering astray in the fog of misleading vividness. But that's just my opinion. Take it or leave it.

Yes

The reality is this ... those people who think the decline of American-led rules-based order is going to usher in an era of peace, because you've convinced yourself that the military industrial complex is the chief antagonist in what would otherwise be a more peaceful world ... well, you may very well be about to feast on prodigious meal of rude awakenings.

The thing about the progression of history and the increased interconnectedness and complexity of the world is ... it's always different!

But I'll give more thoughts on why this is horrifying for global stability tomorrow.

I think the situation in Israel is going to be dramatically destabilizing to global security.

There's an oddly persistent narrative among some quarters that seeks to attribute the complexities of the global stage directly to the doorstep of Washington, D.C. Nowhere is this more evident than in the discourse surrounding the global oil industry. A fluctuation in oil prices? Blame the Fed. A shift in OPEC's stance? Surely, it must be the result of a Federal Reserve policy.

Such attributions aren't just overly simplistic, they're fundamentally misguided. The Fed, while influential, is not an omnipotent entity controlling every ebb and flow of global oil prices. The oil market is dictated by a myriad of factors — geopolitical tensions, supply-demand dynamics, technological advancements, and yes, sometimes, monetary policy. But to single out the Fed as the solitary puppet master is not only intellectually lazy but also flies in the face of the intricate workings of global economies.

Furthermore, it's telling how this narrative — that every significant world event has its roots in U.S. policy — manages to simultaneously overinflate American influence and undermine the agency of other global actors. Consider Russia's actions in Ukraine, or the socioeconomic dynamics of the Global South. To ascribe these solely to U.S. policy or, more specifically, to the Federal Reserve, is to view the world through a severely distorted lens. It glosses over centuries of regional history, deep-seated nationalistic sentiments, and local political dynamics.

There's an oddly persistent narrative among some quarters that seeks to attribute the complexities of the global stage directly to the doorstep of Washington, D.C. Nowhere is this more evident than in the discourse surrounding the global oil industry. A fluctuation in oil prices? Blame the Fed. A shift in OPEC's stance? Surely, it must be the result of a Federal Reserve policy.

Such attributions aren't just overly simplistic, they're fundamentally misguided. The Fed, while influential, is not an omnipotent entity controlling every ebb and flow of global oil prices. The oil market is dictated by a myriad of factors — geopolitical tensions, supply-demand dynamics, technological advancements, and yes, sometimes, monetary policy. But to single out the Fed as the solitary puppet master is not only intellectually lazy but also flies in the face of the intricate workings of global economies.

Furthermore, it's telling how this narrative — that every significant world event has its roots in U.S. policy — manages to simultaneously overinflate American influence and undermine the agency of other global actors. Consider Russia's actions in Ukraine, or the socioeconomic dynamics of the Global South. To ascribe these solely to U.S. policy or, more specifically, to the Federal Reserve, is to view the world through a severely distorted lens. It glosses over centuries of regional history, deep-seated nationalistic sentiments, and local political dynamics.

There's an oddly persistent narrative among some quarters that seeks to attribute the complexities of the global stage directly to the doorstep of Washington, D.C. Nowhere is this more evident than in the discourse surrounding the global oil industry. A fluctuation in oil prices? Blame the Fed. A shift in OPEC's stance? Surely, it must be the result of a Federal Reserve policy.

Such attributions aren't just overly simplistic, they're fundamentally misguided. The Fed, while influential, is not an omnipotent entity controlling every ebb and flow of global oil prices. The oil market is dictated by a myriad of factors — geopolitical tensions, supply-demand dynamics, technological advancements, and yes, sometimes, monetary policy. But to single out the Fed as the solitary puppet master is not only intellectually lazy but also flies in the face of the intricate workings of global economies.

Furthermore, it's telling how this narrative — that every significant world event has its roots in U.S. policy — manages to simultaneously overinflate American influence and undermine the agency of other global actors. Consider Russia's actions in Ukraine, or the socioeconomic dynamics of the Global South. To ascribe these solely to U.S. policy or, more specifically, to the Federal Reserve, is to view the world through a severely distorted lens. It glosses over centuries of regional history, deep-seated nationalistic sentiments, and local political dynamics.

The oil crisis is an under-talked about factor in the general trajectory of inflation, the automotive industry, and even urban development in the US. It’s underplayed just how much the OPEC bloc reshaped the economics of the 80s and beyond. The profound economic consequences of the Oil Crisis rippled across sectors and daily life. The sharp rise in oil prices introduced pervasive inflationary pressures that directly impacted heating, transportation, and production costs. This not only contributed to global economic downturns but also significantly altered trade dynamics, exacerbating trade deficits and leading to greater foreign debt for many oil-importing nations.

In the automotive realm, there was a marked shift in consumer preferences towards fuel efficiency. This trend, in turn, opened the door for Japanese automakers like Toyota and Honda, known for their compact and fuel-efficient cars, to secure significant market shares in the US. The crisis also catalyzed the introduction of stricter emissions and mileage standards, pushing automakers towards technological innovations.

Urban development too felt the ripple effects. The burgeoning cost of gasoline posed challenges to the rapid suburban expansion witnessed in the post-WWII era. Commuters began to reconsider the feasibility of long drives to work, leading to a renewed interest in public transit as an energy-efficient alternative. Furthermore, the increased costs associated with heating homes drove a push for better insulation and overall energy efficiency in construction.

The way some portray the "petrodollar" system, suggesting that it's predominantly a golden ticket for the United States, really misses the mark. Yes, the pricing of oil in dollars does generate a certain demand for the USD. However, to suggest this has been a unilateral boon for the U.S. while ignoring the significant windfalls OPEC nations have enjoyed, is a bit naive.

Let's break it down. OPEC nations, via this arrangement, have not just stacked up substantial revenues but have transformed their economies, cities, and geopolitical positions. Just look at the vast sovereign wealth funds they've built over the years, all driven by petrodollar influx. These funds don't just sit idly – they're active, global investors and have a significant say in global financial markets.

Furthermore, this dollar-for-oil setup also inadvertently ties America's hands to the fortunes and stability of oil-exporting nations. It's a double-edged sword. On one hand, yes, there's a demand for dollars. On the other, it places the U.S. in the midst of geopolitical quagmires and demands a continued diplomatic, and sometimes military, engagement in often unpredictable regions.

The oil crisis is an under-talked about factor in the general trajectory of inflation, the automotive industry, and even urban development in the US. It’s underplayed just how much the OPEC bloc reshaped the economics of the 80s and beyond. The profound economic consequences of the Oil Crisis rippled across sectors and daily life. The sharp rise in oil prices introduced pervasive inflationary pressures that directly impacted heating, transportation, and production costs. This not only contributed to global economic downturns but also significantly altered trade dynamics, exacerbating trade deficits and leading to greater foreign debt for many oil-importing nations.

In the automotive realm, there was a marked shift in consumer preferences towards fuel efficiency. This trend, in turn, opened the door for Japanese automakers like Toyota and Honda, known for their compact and fuel-efficient cars, to secure significant market shares in the US. The crisis also catalyzed the introduction of stricter emissions and mileage standards, pushing automakers towards technological innovations.

Urban development too felt the ripple effects. The burgeoning cost of gasoline posed challenges to the rapid suburban expansion witnessed in the post-WWII era. Commuters began to reconsider the feasibility of long drives to work, leading to a renewed interest in public transit as an energy-efficient alternative. Furthermore, the increased costs associated with heating homes drove a push for better insulation and overall energy efficiency in construction.

The way some portray the "petrodollar" system, suggesting that it's predominantly a golden ticket for the United States, really misses the mark. Yes, the pricing of oil in dollars does generate a certain demand for the USD. However, to suggest this has been a unilateral boon for the U.S. while ignoring the significant windfalls OPEC nations have enjoyed, is a bit naive.

Let's break it down. OPEC nations, via this arrangement, have not just stacked up substantial revenues but have transformed their economies, cities, and geopolitical positions. Just look at the vast sovereign wealth funds they've built over the years, all driven by petrodollar influx. These funds don't just sit idly – they're active, global investors and have a significant say in global financial markets.

Furthermore, this dollar-for-oil setup also inadvertently ties America's hands to the fortunes and stability of oil-exporting nations. It's a double-edged sword. On one hand, yes, there's a demand for dollars. On the other, it places the U.S. in the midst of geopolitical quagmires and demands a continued diplomatic, and sometimes military, engagement in often unpredictable regions.

The oil crisis is an under-talked about factor in the general trajectory of inflation, the automotive industry, and even urban development in the US. It’s underplayed just how much the OPEC bloc reshaped the economics of the 80s and beyond. The profound economic consequences of the Oil Crisis rippled across sectors and daily life. The sharp rise in oil prices introduced pervasive inflationary pressures that directly impacted heating, transportation, and production costs. This not only contributed to global economic downturns but also significantly altered trade dynamics, exacerbating trade deficits and leading to greater foreign debt for many oil-importing nations.

In the automotive realm, there was a marked shift in consumer preferences towards fuel efficiency. This trend, in turn, opened the door for Japanese automakers like Toyota and Honda, known for their compact and fuel-efficient cars, to secure significant market shares in the US. The crisis also catalyzed the introduction of stricter emissions and mileage standards, pushing automakers towards technological innovations.

Urban development too felt the ripple effects. The burgeoning cost of gasoline posed challenges to the rapid suburban expansion witnessed in the post-WWII era. Commuters began to reconsider the feasibility of long drives to work, leading to a renewed interest in public transit as an energy-efficient alternative. Furthermore, the increased costs associated with heating homes drove a push for better insulation and overall energy efficiency in construction.

The way some portray the "petrodollar" system, suggesting that it's predominantly a golden ticket for the United States, really misses the mark. Yes, the pricing of oil in dollars does generate a certain demand for the USD. However, to suggest this has been a unilateral boon for the U.S. while ignoring the significant windfalls OPEC nations have enjoyed, is a bit naive.

Let's break it down. OPEC nations, via this arrangement, have not just stacked up substantial revenues but have transformed their economies, cities, and geopolitical positions. Just look at the vast sovereign wealth funds they've built over the years, all driven by petrodollar influx. These funds don't just sit idly – they're active, global investors and have a significant say in global financial markets.

Furthermore, this dollar-for-oil setup also inadvertently ties America's hands to the fortunes and stability of oil-exporting nations. It's a double-edged sword. On one hand, yes, there's a demand for dollars. On the other, it places the U.S. in the midst of geopolitical quagmires and demands a continued diplomatic, and sometimes military, engagement in often unpredictable regions.

One more thing … not to mention, try letting a car from the 1960s sit in a garage for 3-4 months without it being started. Manufacturers literally instructed owners that they should regularly run and drive the car regularly, and not let it sit too long — otherwise the engine could become un-lubricated and seize up, preventing it from starting. Modern cars can sit for years, have some fresh fuel poured in their tanks and startup fine! People’s definition of “quality” is weird sometimes.

They were easier to service and repair, yes. But they also needed a lot more maintenance. In 1970, the average recommended oil change interval for a car was 2,500 miles. Also, cars needed regular tune-ups, to adjust the timing belts, clean the carburetor — which was recommended to be done every 6,000 miles, on average for a car made in 1970. Clutches in transmissions wore out all the time.

Today, cars are being sold with oil change intervals of 15,000 miles / 1 year. Tune-ups aren’t even a thing anymore, because engine timing is controlled by an ECU, and fuel injection has replaced carburetors. Transmissions routinely last the entire life of the car and go hundreds of thousands of miles with no maintenance — that was literally not a thing for a car made in 1970.

So when people say modern cars are of much lower quality, I never really understand what they’re talking about.

The “cars were better built in the past” is one of those insanely wrong myths that just won’t die. But this video puts it into really stark terms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U