4 ms·

How is that the takeaway you got from his tweets? He is admittedly very embedded in the logistics space and has a unique perspective that has made him (and his

How is that the takeaway you got from his tweets? He is admittedly very embedded in the logistics space and has a unique perspective that has made him (and his company) very successful in the space. He pointed out an idea that could be impactful and it was quickly adopted by at least one city. The impact is lower than the media overhyped it to be and he was the first to admit it is a very complex situation but here are a few ideas to help make small adjustments. Not every person commenting on a difficult problem has to come up with a HUGE improvement. Even if he makes a 0.5-2% improvement in shipping issues with the ideas, it would be admirable progress in a multi-billion dollar issue. If you want to hate on him being rich go for it, but you are shooting down someone who came up with a few interesting ideas out of what seems like spite.

mountainb 5y ago
The larger issue is that there is no "supply shortage." Supply, whether we define it as quantity of goods or quantity of goods imported, has never been higher. Oil production has never been higher. Multiple countries set oil production records. Increasing supply means setting more world records. Supply will always be short if you compare it to something that expands infinitely, which is phantom demand generated by monetary printing press chicanery. Meeting the 'demand' of infinite money would require infinite truck drivers, infinite ports, etc.: it's an absurdity.
- csee 5y ago
  It's not infinite demand. That's something you came up with to prove your point. It's highly elevated demand, and supply isn't keeping up with that elevated demand. You can't separate out demand and supply insofar as causal attribution of price changes goes. It's the interaction of both that makes the price.
  - mountainb 5y ago
    >It's not infinite demand. That's something you came up with to prove your point. Yes, it is a piece of rhetoric used to imply that a problem caused by overly loose monetary and fiscal policy cannot be solved by just having supply rise to meet the natural consequences of that policy. In any market, price goes up when demand outpaces supply. You can visually perceive that in any chart software that visualizes the buy side and the sell side on a given asset. You're repeating an axiom, which is that price results from the interaction between supply and demand, without addressing the point that it is the demand side which is not merely 'elevated,' but is being manipulated upwards by policy above what it would be absent the strange monetary state of affairs combined with the lasting effects of the various relief bills that suspended many controls on lending standards. It is easier for the government to conjure demand on command, indeed at the 'press of a button,' but it is much more complex to have supply meet that conjured demand. But solving the so-called supply issues would just be met with more stimulus, which would create more supply issues due to the physical limitations of reality. A better argument against what I said would be to try to portray this record demand, which is outpacing world-record supply, as a consequence of a roaring economic boom occurring due to fundamental factors. You could say that the stimulus is irrelevant and that growth might even continue with tighter monetary policy and more stringent lending standards.
    - csee 5y ago
      I agree with most of this. I just don't accept the original claim that there isn't a supply shortage. There is a supply shortage. If supply isn't keeping up with demand, that is by definition a supply shortage. Whether the demand increase is organic or through stimulus is largely immaterial to the question of whether there's a supply shortage. Whether it's easier/better to reduce stimulus or increase supply is also immaterial to that question. Whether the supply can't increase quickly enough because of physical limitations is also immaterial. Also, are you sure that the immediate cause of this is all fiscal/monetary policy influencing demand. How have lockdowns impacted on supply?

mountainb 5y ago

The larger issue is that there is no "supply shortage." Supply, whether we define it as quantity of goods or quantity of goods imported, has never been higher. Oil production has never been higher. Multiple countries set oil production records. Increasing supply means setting more world records. Supply will always be short if you compare it to something that expands infinitely, which is phantom demand generated by monetary printing press chicanery. Meeting the 'demand' of infinite money would require infinite truck drivers, infinite ports, etc.: it's an absurdity.

csee 5y ago
It's not infinite demand. That's something you came up with to prove your point. It's highly elevated demand, and supply isn't keeping up with that elevated demand. You can't separate out demand and supply insofar as causal attribution of price changes goes. It's the interaction of both that makes the price.
- mountainb 5y ago
  >It's not infinite demand. That's something you came up with to prove your point. Yes, it is a piece of rhetoric used to imply that a problem caused by overly loose monetary and fiscal policy cannot be solved by just having supply rise to meet the natural consequences of that policy. In any market, price goes up when demand outpaces supply. You can visually perceive that in any chart software that visualizes the buy side and the sell side on a given asset. You're repeating an axiom, which is that price results from the interaction between supply and demand, without addressing the point that it is the demand side which is not merely 'elevated,' but is being manipulated upwards by policy above what it would be absent the strange monetary state of affairs combined with the lasting effects of the various relief bills that suspended many controls on lending standards. It is easier for the government to conjure demand on command, indeed at the 'press of a button,' but it is much more complex to have supply meet that conjured demand. But solving the so-called supply issues would just be met with more stimulus, which would create more supply issues due to the physical limitations of reality. A better argument against what I said would be to try to portray this record demand, which is outpacing world-record supply, as a consequence of a roaring economic boom occurring due to fundamental factors. You could say that the stimulus is irrelevant and that growth might even continue with tighter monetary policy and more stringent lending standards.
  - csee 5y ago
    I agree with most of this. I just don't accept the original claim that there isn't a supply shortage. There is a supply shortage. If supply isn't keeping up with demand, that is by definition a supply shortage. Whether the demand increase is organic or through stimulus is largely immaterial to the question of whether there's a supply shortage. Whether it's easier/better to reduce stimulus or increase supply is also immaterial to that question. Whether the supply can't increase quickly enough because of physical limitations is also immaterial. Also, are you sure that the immediate cause of this is all fiscal/monetary policy influencing demand. How have lockdowns impacted on supply?