Chinese vehicles, both EV and ICE, are selling like crazy in every market where they can legally be sold. I've spent some time in Latin America recently and have ridden in several of the various models, and the reality is that they are all quite nice. The Uber drivers driving them invariably think that they got excellent value for their money.

In the United States we don't have access to these inexpensive brands. We can either buy expensive ICE vehicles, or even more expensive EVs where you pay a premium to not burn fossil fuels. In that situation it makes sense to want a vehicle that competes favorably with an ICE vehicle. After all, you can get a perfectly good ICE or hybrid vehicle for less than it would cost to buy a less capable EV.

The equation shifts dramatically when the Chinese vehicle you are looking at (whether it is ICE or EV) is 1/3 to 1/2 the price of a comparable vehicle. If I could get a Chinese EV for $13K I, personally, would be willing to put up with some of its shortcomings. As an example, I like the idea of the American made and designed Slate truck. However, it isn't available until next year at the earliest, and it is likely to cost $30K, very close to what a base model Ford Maverik, Nissan Frontera, or even a Toyota Tacoma currently cost. At that price it doesn't really make sense to purchase the far less capable electric vehicle.

However, if the Slate only cost $15K then it becomes far more interesting. That's the sort of price difference that Chinese brands are currently offering. I could learn to live with a range of 150 miles (that's supposedly the Slate's range, Chinese vehicles typically offer more than that), if it costs half as much as the competition. China is making vehicles that are more than competitive with what we currently have access to in the United States, and the prices are very low. The only thing keeping China from making huge inroads in the U.S. auto market is politics.

Sure there are some people that will never buy a Chinese vehicle, and there are other people that will never buy an EV. That's fine. I remember when the same arguments were made against Japanese (and later Korean) vehicles. If the politicians really thought that no one would be interested in these cars then they wouldn't need to protect us from them with tariffs.

The housing market is definitely another place where things have become ridiculously expensive. Fixing that issue is more difficult. Everyone is in favor of low cost housing, until they are building it in their neighborhood.

On the bright side, there is a ready source of inexpensive vehicles already for sale. The only problem is that, in the U.S. at least, our politicians won't let us buy them.

In the case of both cars and houses the solution is to remove existing barriers to supply. Right now it is impossible to build inexpensive housing in many parts of the country, and so we end up with expensive housing instead. It is likewise impossible to buy the inexpensive vehicles that I believe that consumers actually want.

My current daily driver is a 1996 Honda Civic (the base model with a 5 speed manual transmission, no AC, and manual windows). I say this to say that I really like the idea of the Slate. What I want is a basic electric vehicle without frills, and without extra technology that does nothing but break and drive up the price. The problem with the Slate is that it is not yet available, nor is it likely to be available in any numbers for a couple of years. What's more, there are already more capable Chinese vehicles selling in large quantities throughout the world that are available at a lower price. These vehicles come from companies that have already set up manufacturing and distribution channels, and they are selling vehicles in some of the most challenging markets in the world.

I've done a bit of traveling in Latin America in recent years and the reality is that there are several Chinese brands that are already powerhouses when it comes to actually selling, delivering, and maintaining vehicles. They make very competitive vehicles, and, at least in Latin America you can get these vehicles serviced and repaired ridiculously inexpensively. Uber drivers were quick to point out that their BYD (and other brand) Chinese vehicles weren't Toyotas, but they have invariably stressed that they would buy them again.

If it wasn't for the U.S. tariffs the Slate wouldn't even be a contender, and it isn't likely to be a contender when it is finally available. The only real advantage that it has is that it is comparatively affordable when compared to the other ridiculously overpriced EVs that you can currently purchase in the United States.

It is also worth noting that the projected base price of the Slate keeps going up. The first time I heard about it they were saying that it would cost around $12K with tax incentives. That would have put it under $20K without incentives. These days they say that it should cost less than $30K, but that puts it within spitting distance of the base model Ford Maverik, Nissan Frontier, or Toyota Tacoma, which, quite frankly, are far more capable vehicles, from companies with actual track records.

The reason that Chinese EVs are interesting is that they are essentially 1/3 to 1/2 the price of existing ICE truck models with compelling features and decent build quality. In the parts of the world where politics aren't getting in the way these Chinese vehicles are absolutely dominating. That's what I want.

I have spent some time recently in Latin America, including several countries where Chinese imports are absolutely dominating. The local Uber drivers like their Chinese vehicles. They are quick to point out that they don't measure up to Toyota, but that, for the money, they have been an excellent value. They invariably would buy the vehicle again. Every time I get into a Chinese vehicle I ask the driver what he thinks about it, and the results have been overwhelmingly positive.

I haven't driven any of these vehicles, but as a passenger the various Chinese vehicles look pretty well made. For the price I am definitely interested.

The reality is that the entire U.S. auto industry has been chasing the luxury, and large vehicle segment of the market, and I am not interested in those types of vehicles. I want a vehicle that replaces my current daily driver, a 1996 Honda Civic. I don't want someone else's clapped out SUV. I want an inexpensive basic small electric vehicle. The Nissan Leaf is closest to what I am looking for, but in countries where Chinese imports are allowed to flourish the Leaf isn't even a contender. It is simply outclassed by the Chinese offerings.

That isn't even remotely true, at least not in any recent era. The way that bookmakers have made odds for hundreds of years has been to set the odds so that roughly the same amount of bets came in on both sides. The house makes their money from a fee that they take for setting up the bet. This is colloquially know as "vigorish, vig, or the juice."

Read the article linked, it covers how this works mathematically.

It might look like you are betting against the bookie, but the reality is that the bookie doesn't take the bet unless he has someone that is willing to take the other side of the bet, and the odds are set up so that whoever wins the money that they win is balanced by another group that lost that same amount plus a little more. That's why odds for future events would often change over time. if the bookmaker got too much interest on one side of the wager the odds would change to entice people to bet the other way. The vig guarantees that either way the house wins. That's literally what "bookmaking" means.

In other words, historically bookmaking worked exactly like prediction markets, and it has worked this way forever. The difference is that in most of the world it generally has been illegal, because gambling is addictive and destructive. There's a reason that this sort of thing was basically universally illegal, and the reason is that societies that didn't put up these guardrails invariably failed.

There's no catch. This is just Google trying to spike Apple's wheels. Play Store revenue is a much smaller piece of Google's overall revenue than Apple's App Store is of its overall revenue. Google can afford to be generous on that front, with the idea that both regulators and developers will love the change. Apple can't play that game without significantly lowering its total revenue.

Of course, consumers will pay for less expensive phone apps with increased surveillance, but, let's be honest, Apple and Google are both going to increase surveillance either way.

The point of this article is that, even on full sized televisions, YouTube is kicking Hollywood's collective ass. When they look at hours of programming watched on full sized televisions YouTube is clearly on top, followed by Netflix, with everyone else quite a ways behind. That's not counting computer or smaller screens where YouTube is completely dominant. Movies are making less money these days because far less people are spending money on movies. Interestingly enough one of the few bright spots for movies are smaller studios making limited availability movies. These movies have much lower budgets, and basically non-existent marketing, but the empty seats in the movie theaters means that there are screens available at a price where they can make a tidy profit. Traditional television is getting absolutely wrecked. The only part of television that people are willing to pay money for is sports broadcasting. No one has a cable or satellite subscription unless they are a rabid sports fan. The shows that everyone is talking about are as likely to come from Korea or Australia as they are from Hollywood. For years people assumed that Hollywood drove the value of cable television, and now that people have choice it turns out that the valuable part of television is the sports (and to a less extent the news). ESPN costs more than Netflix, Paramount and Apple TV combined, and Disney forces you to purchase to purchase a whole pile of their regular programming to get it. Disney is currently suing SlingTV because SlingTV is selling day and weekend passes so that you can just purchase the games you want to see without all of the rest of the slop that you don't. On top of that Hollywood is seeing increased competition from the entire rest of the world. The hit television show that everyone is talking about is almost as likely to come out of Korea as it is from U.S.

Hollywood is definitely contracting, but it is mostly because making scripted content, whether it is for television or movies, is becoming far less lucrative than it has been in the past. People are watching less scripted content, and when they do watch something it is likely that what they are watching is not from Hollywood.

As you have mentioned Prime Time TV has devolved into cop shows, but it's actually worse than that. The few hits that Hollywood have had over the last few years have invariably been live competitions and other reality TV shows.

This is it, precisely. If I could buy a new EV for $12K I would absolutely do that. If buying a new EV means that I have to spend $60K then I am not remotely interested. EV vehicles have some problems that make them impractical as the only vehicle for most families. Those problems disappear completely if the vehicle is inexpensive enough so that it doesn't have to be your only vehicle.

China is currently giving EVs away, we are stupid for not taking them up on the offer. Eventually the U.S. auto market would adapt. I am quite sure that they could also make low margin EVs if they had the right incentive. Let's be honest, the American public would probably be willing to subsidize them as they made the change. However, instead we have rigged the entire system so that U.S. manufacturers are incentivized to only compete in the largest, most expensive, and least environmentally friendly auto markets available. It's no wonder that the rest of the world isn't interested in our cars.

I used to work for Sling TV, and you basically have that backwards. ESPN is the part of Disney's package that people are willing to pay money for. The shutdown and negotiations every year is just Disney forcing the various providers to pay for and carry their other channels. That's why Disney always holds these negotiations during football season, so if they have to shut someone down their customers actually care. Every year viewership on Disney's other channels (and non-sports channels in general) is lower, and the prices that the content producers require goes up. Scripted television is in serious decline, and Hollywood is using sports fans to prop it up.

As an example, If you don't care about sports you can get Disney+ without ads for about $12 a month. Disney will happily throw in Hulu for that same price if you will watch some ads. You can binge watch the shows that you care about and then switch to another channel. Heck, you can buy entire seasons of their shows ala carte. You can't get ESPN however, without paying at least $45/month, and that's with a package with no non-Disney channels and chuck full of ads. For the record, that's basically what the streaming services are paying Disney as well. When I worked at Sling the entirety of the subscription fees went to the content companies (primarily Disney). There is essentially no profit in cable packages. All of the profit has to be made up somewhere else.

People that aren't sports fans, especially if they are entertainment fans, tend to believe that scripted programming is carrying sports, but it is the other way around. That's why AppleTV, which has spent over $20 billion creating content for their channel has about as many subscribers the amount of people that typically watch a single episode of Thursday Night Football, the worst professional football game of the week. Amazon Prime pays $1 billion a year for that franchise, and it is a bargain compared to creating scripted content. Apple makes great television that almost no one pays for. The other content providers are in the same boat. You'll notice, for example, that Netflix's most expensive package is $25/month, and the revenue per user in the U.S. is around $16. That's ad free. The lowest promotional price you can pay for ESPN is basically twice that, and it always comes with ads. What's more, sports fans tend to actually watch the ads.

Sling is selling day and weekend passes to people because it knows that most of its customers only have their service to watch the game. No one is watching linear television anymore, but the content creators have built their entire business around the idea of having a channel that they fill up with content. Even with Sling's ridiculous prices they can typically watch the games they want to watch for less than maintaining a subscription.

I have spent most of my adult life in the sports world, but I don't watch sports. I personally believe that in the long run sports television is probably going to end up uncoupled from scripted television. I think that is going to be very bad news for people that like scripted television.

Anthropic's entire pitch has always been safety. Innovation like this tends to favor a very few companies, and it leaves behind a whole pile of losers that also had to spend ridiculous amounts of capital in the hopes of catching the next wave. If you bet on the winning company you make a pile of money, if you pick one of the losers then the capital you invested evaporates. Anthropic has positioned itself as OpenAI, except with safeguards, and that could very well be the formula that wins the jackpot. Historically, litigation and government sponsorship have been instrumental in picking winners.

However, as things currently stand, Anthropic is unlikely to win on technical merits over its competition. So Dario's entire job as a CEO is basically to get the government involved. If he can create enough doubt about the people that are currently making decisions in AI circles that the government gets involved, either directly through government investment, or indirectly through legislation, then his firm has a chance at grabbing the brass ring. That's not to say that he is wrong, he might even be sincere. It is just that it isn't surprising that his pitch is that AI has the potential to be wildly dangerous and we need to think about safety. That's essentially the only path that makes his firm a viable long term player.

He used to win these market timing games because no one was paying attention to huge short positions. You could quietly bet against a company, or, better yet, you could quietly amass a short position and then release stunning negative news that you had uncovered and watch the stock price tank.

These days it is more likely that online investors will notice a large short, and drive the price of the stock up until the person holding the short gets margin called and loses all of their money. The shorters then provide the liquidity you need to get out of the position. There used to be good money in shorting terrible companies, but in an age where hordes of armchair investors can drive the price of GameStop to the moon that strategy is just too risky.

I suspect that these streams are costing Youtube money. They can't monetize them, and they have to spend effort shutting them down or they get in serious legal trouble. If things persist I suspect that Youtube changes its live streaming service in ways that make this impossible.

We will see though.

The problem, of course, is that Sports content is paying more than its fair share of the bill for all televised content. It is easy to see the large bills and assume that sports is a cost center, but the reality is that sport tends to pay its own way, while scripted television is much more of a gamble. To a certain extent that is why most scripted television these days is so formulaic. The television studios know that they can make money with modern versions of "The Rockford Files." That's why NCIS is in its quadzillionth season.

Severance is great, but it is a prime example of what I am talking about. Apple has spent billions of dollars on content at this point, and they are still hemorrhaging money. People like their shows, but they aren't lining up to pay for them. Shoresy is in a better spot, but only because Disney is doing its level best to tie Shoresy to ESPN and other sports related content that people are willing to pay for. The folks wanting to buy ESPN can get the rest of the Disney bundle for pennies. You can't just buy ESPN, you have to buy it with a television package. Disney does this because they know that if people have their other channels, then they tend to watch them. They are willing to pay a premium, however, for sports.

Hulu is cheap, and you can get it by itself. The same goes for AppleTV. All of these cost Netflix amounts of money $12 (or so) a month. When I worked for Sling it's entire packaging was based around making it possible to bundle ESPN for less than anyone else. If you want ESPN the least you can pay is $45/month, and that doesn't give you the other channel's sports package, that you probably want if you are a sports fan as well. It is very likely that the team that you follow will have at least one game on ESPN's competitors. That means that if you are purchasing from Sling you need the blue package as well (which is another $45, or bundled will total $60). You could easily sign up for all of the non-sports streaming channels for less than an Orange+Blue package (which once again is as competitively priced as it is possible to do). I was just looking at Disney's bundle, and you can get Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN for $35/month, which is definitely the least expensive way to get ESPN these days. That's with ads, which are added even to VOD content. If you want to watch your VOD content without ads that's another $10. Linear content (like watching cable) always comes with ads. Sports fans can't dodge ads ever.

I bring up pricing like this to make it clear which parts of television customers are actually willing to pay money for. If you don't want to pay for sports (and I don't blame you), then you can easily pay $12/month and switch between streaming providers and watch whatever shows you want to watch. All of those services allow you to easily stop and continue your subscription, and none of the content is likely to go away. Heck, chances are good that, if you wait long enough, you can watch the shows that you want on one of the free services. In most cases they are literally giving away old scripted content. The problem with this model, is that it doesn't make Hollywood enough money to be profitable with their current structure. The reason that Disney (and everyone else) bundle channels the way that they do is because they know that they can't afford to gamble on scripted content unless they bundle those risks with the proven money generation of sports content. More and more people like you, who don't want to pay for sports content, are opting for less expensive alternatives that still get them the shows that they want.

This market contraction is why Hollywood is so focused on franchises that have historically been popular. So instead of new shows we get derivatives of things that were popular in the past. Scripted content is risky, and as it gets uncoupled from less risky sports content producers do whatever they can to hedge their bets. So we get a re-re-remake of the TMNTs, Spiderman, or we get another cop show. Recently we have also been blessed with shows that have been popular in other countries or markets (that is legitimately cool in my opinion), but that is also likely to dry up as entertainment becomes more global.

Which leaves what can be done on Youtube budgets for anything remotely risky. Which is fine, I suppose. Personally, I like watching people restore old sailboats. That's not something that is ever going to be more than a niche market, but on Youtube that's enough of a market to make it financially viable for a few people. Maybe with AI it will even become possible to do good SciFi with that sort of a budget. Who knows? One thing is certain, it is definitely interesting times ahead.

Plus, IBM owns RedHat. So that's probably something. Then again, maybe that is the hyper growth software and services bit that they want to keep.

My hyperbole got the better of me again. You are not the only one. Little House on the Prairie is remarkably good television. It definitely beats doom-scrolling on your phone.