Let's Know Things

• Sudan's Civil War

  This week we talk about the RSF, coups, and the liberal world order.We also discuss humanitarian aid, foreign conflicts, and genocide.Recommended Book: Inventing the Renaissance by Ada PalmerTranscriptIn 2019, a military government took over Sudan, following a successful coup d'état against then-President Omar al-Bashir, who had been in power for thirty years. al-Bashir’s latter years were plagued by popular demonstrations against rising costs of living and pretty abysmal living standards, and the government lashed out against protestors violently, before then dissolving local government leaders and their offices, replacing them with hand-picked military and intelligence officers. After he responded violently to yet another, even bigger protest, the military launched their coup, and the protestors pivoted to targeting them, demanding a civilian-run democracy.Just two months later, after unsuccessful negotiations between the new military government and the folks demanding they step aside to allow a civilian government to take charge, the military leaders massacred a bunch civilians who hosted a sit-in protest. Protestors shifted to a period of sustained civil disobedience and a general strike, and the government agreed to hold elections in 2022, three years later, and said that they would investigate the massacre their soldiers committed against those protestors. They also established a joint civilian-military unity government that would run things until the new, civilian government was eventually formed.In late-2021, though, the Sudanese military launched another coup against the unity government, and that council was dissolved, a state of emergency was declared, and all the important people who were helping the country segue back into a democracy were arrested. A new military-only junta was formed, incorporating the two main military groups that were running things, at that point.In 2023, those two military bodies that were working together to run Sudan via this military junta, the Rapid Support Forces, a paramilitary group that were made into a sort of official part of the country’s military, while remaining separate from it, and the official Sudanese army, both started aggressively recruiting soldiers and taunting each other with military maneuvers. On April 15 that year, they started firing on each other.This conflict stemmed from the Sudanese military demanding that the RSF dissolve itself, all their people integrating into the country’s main military apparatus, but some kind of stand-off seemed to be a long time coming, as the RSF started its recruiting efforts earlier that year, and built up its military resources in the capital as early as February. But as I mentioned, this tinderbox erupted into a shooting war in April, beginning in the capital city, Khartoum, before spreading fast to other major cities.So what eventually became a Sudanese civil, which at this point has been ongoing for nearly 2.5 years, began in April of 2023, was long-simmering before that, is between two heavily armed military groups that ran the country together for a few years, and which both claim to be the rightful leaders or owners of the country, and they’re fighting each other in heavily populated areas.This war was also kicked off and is now sustained in part by ethnic conflicts between the main belligerents, which includes the aforementioned Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces, but also the Sudan Liberation Movement, which governs a fairly remote and self-sufficient mountainous area in the southern part of the country, and the al-Hilu movement, which supports the RSF’s efforts in the region.What I’d like to talk about today is what’s happening on the ground in Sudan, in the third year of this conflict, and at a moment when the world’s attention seems to have refocused elsewhere, major governments that would have previously attempted to stop the civil war have more or less given up on doing so, and the Sudanese civilians who have been pulled into the conflict, or who have been forced to flee their homes as a consequence of this war, have been left without food, shelter, or any good guys to cheer for.—Sudan has been plagued by coups since it gained independence from the UK and Egypt in 1956; it’s seen 20 coup attempts, 7 of them successful, including that most recent one in 2019, since independence.This region also has a recent history of genocide, perhaps most notably in the western Darfur region, where an estimated quarter of a million people from a trio of ethnic groups were killed between 2003 and 2005, alone, and something like 2.7 million people were displaced, forced to flee the systematic killings, strategically applied sexual violence, and other abuses by the Sudanese military and the local, rebel Janjaweed militias, which were often armed by the government and tasked with weeding out alleged rebel sympathizers in the region.This new civil war is on a completely different scale, though. As of April of 2025, two years into the conflict, it’s estimated that about 12.5 million people have been displaced, forced from their homes due to everything being burned down or bombed, due to threats from local military groups, killing and assaulting and forcibly recruiting civilians to their cause, and due to a lack of resources, the food and water and shelter all grabbed by these military forces and denied to those who are just trying to live their lives; and that’s true of locally sourced stuff, but also humanitarian aide that makes it into the country—it’s grabbed by the people with guns, and the people without guns are left with nothing.More than 3.3 million Sudanese people are estimated to have fled the country entirely, and recent figures show that around 25 million people are facing extreme levels of hunger, on the verge of starving to death, including about five million children and their mothers who are essentially wasting away. There are reports of people eating leaves and charcoal, just to get something in their stomachs, and photo evidence of these unmoving crowds of skeletal people who are desperate to get anything, any kind of nutrition at all, any clean water, still make it out of the country, though less and less, as it’s becoming more difficult for reporters to make it into and out of the area, safely, and the internet and other communication services, where they’re still available, are often shut down.Aid agencies have said that this civil war has created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and even the US government, which especially right now has been very hesitant to say anything about foreign conflicts, has made it pretty clear that they consider this to be a genocide; there are conscious, intentional, obviously planned efforts to systematically wipe out different ethnic groups, and to cleanse areas of hated political and religious rivals, but this genocide is being carried out at the exact moment that many of the world’s major, wealthy governments, which historically would have tried to step in and remedy the situation in some way—often ham-handedly, sometimes by supporting one side or the other to try to gain influence in the region, but almost always by also airdropping food and medical goods and other resources into the area to try to help civilians—these governments are mostly pulling back from those sorts of efforts.Some analysts and regional experts have suggested that this points toward a new normal in the global geopolitical playing field; the so-called liberal world order that helped organize things, that established rules and norms from the end of WWII onward, and which incentivized everyone playing nice with each other, not invading each other, not committing genocide, and focusing on trade over war, is falling apart, the United States in particular deciding to stop funding things, stop participating, deciding to antagonize the allies that helped it maintain this state of affairs, and to basically drop anything that seems to much like a responsibility to people not in the United States. And a lot of other governments are either scrambling to figure out what that means for them, or deciding that they can afford to do something of the same. China, for instance, while stepping in to fill some of those voids, strategically, has also pulled back on some of its humanitarian efforts, because it no longer needs to invest as much in such things to compete with the US, which no longer seems to be competing in that space at all, with rare exceptions.Conflicts in Africa, also with rare exceptions, also just tend to get less attention than conflicts elsewhere, and there are all sorts of theories as to why this might be the case, from simple racism to the idea that areas with more economic potential are more valuable as allies or supplicants, so wealthy nations with the ability to do something will tend to focus their resources on areas that are more strategically vital or wealth-generating, so as to recoup their investment.Whatever the specifics and rationales, though, Sudan has long been conflict-prone, but this civil war seems to be locking the area into a state of total war—where nothing is off the table, and terror against civilians, and to a certain degree wiping out one’s enemies completely, salting the earth, killing all the civilians so they can never threaten your force’s dominance again, is becoming fundamental to everyone’s military strategy—and that state of total war, in addition to be just horrific all by itself, also threatens to roil the rest of the area, including the far more globally integrated and thus well supported and funded Horn of Africa region, which is strategically vital for many nations, due to its adjacency to the Middle East and several vital ports, and the Sahel, which is a strip of land that stretches across the continent, just south of the Sahara desert, and which in modern history has been especially prone to military coups and periods of violence, at times verging on genocide, and which in recent decades has seen a bunch of democratic governments toppled and replaced by military juntas that have done their best to completely disempower all possible future opposition, at times by committing what look a lot like mini-genocides.This conflict, all by itself, then, is already one of the worst humanitarian situations the world has seen, but the confluence of international distraction—much of our attention and the majority of our resources focused on the also horrible situations in Gaza and Ukraine, and the specter of great power competitions that might arise as a result of Ukraine, or of China deciding to invade Taiwan—alongside the pullback from humanitarian funding, and the seeming distaste previously internationally involved entities, like the US and China, now seem to have when it comes to playing peacemaker, or attempted peacemaker, in these sorts of conflicts.All of which would seem to make it a lot more likely that this conflict, and others like it, will continue to play out, and may even reach a scale that permanently scars Sudan and its people, and which possibly even cascades into a series of regional conflicts, some interconnected, and some merely inspired by the brazenness they can clearly see across the border, and the seeming lack of consequences for those committing these sorts of atrocities in order to attain more power and control.Show Noteshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_genocidehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_civil_war_(2023%E2%80%93present)https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/09/sudan-civil-war-humanitarian-crisis/683563/?gift=201cWZnM2XBz2eP81zy0pG9Zt_k9jZnrEhnY7lvH1ZQhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/08/13/sudan-humanitarian-global-world-order-neglect-conflict/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/19/world/africa/sudan-usaid-famine.htmlhttps://www.reuters.com/world/africa/world-food-programme-reduce-food-support-sudan-due-funding-shortages-2025-04-25/https://www.eurasiareview.com/25042025-sudan-war-is-a-global-crisis-in-the-making-analysis/https://apnews.com/article/un-sudan-darfur-war-anniversary-paramilitary-government-dbfff6244d935f595fb7649a87a6e073https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/sudans-world-warhttps://news.un.org/en/story/2025/04/1162576https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/04/1162096https://reliefweb.int/report/sudan/sudan-situation-map-weekly-regional-update-18-aug-2025https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2wryz4gw7ohttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/30/opinion/sudan-genocide-famine.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_revolutionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_civil_war_(2023%E2%80%93present)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Sudanese_coup_d%27%C3%A9tathttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan_People%27s_Liberation_Movement%E2%80%93Northhttps://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/horn-africa/sudan/stopping-sudans-descent-full-blown-civil-warhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coups_d%27%C3%A9tat_in_Sudan This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  15:20

  --------

  15:20
• Intel Bailout

  This week we talk about General Motors, the Great Recession, and semiconductors.We also discuss Goldman Sachs, US Steel, and nationalization.Recommended Book: Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek ThompsonTranscriptNationalization refers to the process through which a government takes control of a business or business asset.Sometimes this is the result of a new administration or regime taking control of a government, which decides to change how things work, so it gobbles up things like oil companies or railroads or manufacturing hubs, because that stuff is considered to be fundamental enough that it cannot be left to the whims, and the ebbs and eddies and unpredictable variables of a free market; the nation needs reliable oil, it needs to be churning out nails and screws and bullets, so the government grabs the means of producing these things to ensure nothing stops that kind of output or operation.That more holistic reworking of a nation’s economy so that it reflects some kind of socialist setup is typically referred to as socialization, though commentary on the matter will still often refer to the individual instances of the government taking ownership over something that was previously private as nationalization.In other cases these sorts of assets are nationalized in order to right some kind of perceived wrong, as was the case when the French government, in the wake of WWII, nationalized the automobile company Renault for its alleged collaboration with the Nazis when they occupied France.The circumstances of that nationalization were questioned, as there was a lot of political scuffling between capitalist and communist interests in the country at that time, and some saw this as a means of getting back against the company’s owner, Louis Renault, for his recent, violent actions against workers who had gone on strike before France’s occupation—but whatever the details, France scooped up Renault and turned it into a state-owned company, and in 1994, the government decided that its ownership of the company was keeping its products from competing on the market, and in 1996 it was privatized and they started selling public shares, though the French government still owns about 15% of the company.Nationalization is more common in some non-socialist nations than others, as there are generally considered to be significant pros and cons associated with such ownership.The major benefit of such ownership is that a government owned, or partially government owned entity will tend to have the government on its side to a greater or lesser degree, which can make it more competitive internationally, in the sense that laws will be passed to help it flourish and grow, and it may even benefit from direct infusions of money, when needed, especially with international competition heats up, and because it generally allows that company to operate as a piece of government infrastructure, rather than just a normal business.Instead of being completely prone to the winds of economic fortune, then, the US government can ensure that Amtrak, a primarily state-owned train company that’s structured as a for-profit business, but which has a government-appointed board and benefits from federal funding, is able to keep functioning, even when demand for train services is low, and barbarians at the gate, like plane-based cargo shipping and passenger hauling, becomes a lot more competitive, maybe even to the point that a non-government-owned entity may have long-since gone under, or dramatically reduced its service area, by economic necessity.A major downside often cited by free-market people, though, is that these sorts of companies tend to do poorly, in terms of providing the best possible service, and in terms of making enough money to pay for themselves—services like Amtrak are structured so that they pay as much of their own expenses as much as possible, for instance, but are seldom able to do so, requiring injections of resources from the government to stay afloat, and as a result, they have trouble updating and even maintaining their infrastructure.Private companies tend to be a lot more agile and competitive because they have to be, and because they often have leadership that is less political in nature, and more oriented around doing better than their also private competition, rather than merely surviving.What I’d like to talk about today is another vital industry that seems to have become so vital, like trains, that the US government is keen to ensure it doesn’t go under, and a stake that the US government took in one of its most historically significant, but recently struggling companies.—The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was a law passed by the US government after the initial whammy of the Great Recession, which created a bunch of bailouts for mostly financial institutions that, if they went under, it was suspected, would have caused even more damage to the US economy.These banks had been playing fast and loose with toxic assets for a while, filling their pockets with money, but doing so in a precarious and unsustainable manner.As a result, when it became clear these assets were terrible, the dominos started falling, all these institutions started going under, and the government realized that they would either lose a significant portion of their banks and other financial institutions, or they’d have to bail them out—give them money, basically.Which wasn’t a popular solution, as it looked a lot like rewarding bad behavior, and making some businesses, private businesses, too big to fail, because the country’s economy relied on them to some degree. But that’s the decision the government made, and some of these institutions, like Goldman Sachs, had their toxic assets bought by the government, removing these things from their balance sheets so they could keep operating as normal. Others declared bankruptcy and were placed under government control, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were previously government supported, but not government run.The American International Group, the fifth largest insurer in the world at that point, was bought by the US government—it took 92% of the company in exchange for $141.8 billion in assistance, to help it stay afloat—and General Motors, not a financial institution, but a car company that was deemed vital to the continued existence of the US auto market, went bankrupt, the fourth largest bankruptcy in US history. The government allowed its assets to be bought by a new company, also called GM, which would then function as normal, which allowed the company to keep operating, employees to keep being paid, and so on, but as part of that process, the company was given a total of $51 billion by the government, which took a majority stake in the new company in exchange.In late-2013, the US government sold its final shares of GM stock, having lost about $10.7 billion over the course of that ownership, though it’s estimated that about 1.5 million jobs were saved as a result of keeping GM and Chrysler, which went through a similar process, afloat, rather than letting them go under, as some people would have preferred.In mid-August of this year, the US government took another stake in a big, historically significant company, though this time the company in question wasn’t going through a recession-sparked bankruptcy—it was just falling way behind its competition, and was looking less and less likely to ever catch up.Intel was founded 1968, and it designs, produces, and sells all sorts of semiconductor products, like the microprocessors—the computer chips—that power all sorts of things, these days.Intel created the world’s first commercial computer chip back in 1971, and in the 1990s, its products were in basically every computer that hit the market, its range and dominance expanding with the range and dominance of Microsoft’s Windows operating system, achieving a market share of about 90% in the mid- to late-1990s.Beginning in the early 2000s, though, other competitors, like AMD, began to chip away at Intel’s dominance, and though it still boasts a CPU market share of around 67% as of Q2 of 2025, it has fallen way behind competitors like Nvidia in the graphics card market, and behind Samsung in the larger semiconductor market.And that’s a problem for Intel, as while CPUs are still important, the overall computing-things, high-tech gadget space has been shifting toward stuff that Intel doesn’t make, or doesn’t do well.Smaller things, graphics-intensive things. Basically all the hardware that’s powered the gaming, crypto, and AI markets, alongside the stuff crammed into increasingly small personal devices, are things that Intel just isn’t very good at, and doesn’t seem to have a solid means of getting better at, so it’s a sort of aging giant in the computer world—still big and impressive, but with an outlook that keeps getting worse and worse, with each new generation of hardware, and each new innovation that seems to require stuff it doesn’t produce, or doesn’t produce good versions of.This is why, despite being a very unusual move, the US government’s decision to buy a 10% stake in Intel for $8.9 billion didn’t come as a total surprise.The CEO of Intel had been raising the possibility of some kind of bailout, positioning Intel as a vital US asset, similar to all those banks and to GM—if it went under, it would mean the US losing a vital piece of the global semiconductor pie. The government already gave Intel $2.2 billion as part of the CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law under the Biden administration, and which was meant to shore-up US competitiveness in that space, but that was a freebie—this new injection of resources wasn’t free.Response to this move has been mixed. Some analysts think President Trump’s penchant for netting the government shares in companies it does stuff for—as was the case with US Steel giving the US government a so-called ‘golden share’ of its company in exchange for allowing the company to merge with Japan-based Nippon Steel, that share granting a small degree of governance authority within the company—they think that sort of quid-pro-quo is smart, as in some cases it may result in profits for a government that’s increasingly underwater in terms of debt, and in others it gives some authority over future decisions, giving the government more levers to use, beyond legal ones, in steering these vital companies the way it wants to steer them.Others are concerned about this turn of events, though, as it seems, theoretically at least, anti-competitive. After all, if the US government profits when Intel does well, now that it owns a huge chunk of the company, doesn’t that incentivize the government to pass laws that favor Intel over its competitors? And even if the government doesn’t do anything like that overtly, doesn’t that create a sort of chilling effect on the market, making it less likely serious competitors will even emerge, because investors might be too spooked to invest in something that would be going up against a partially government-owned entity?There are still questions about the legality of this move, as it may be that the CHIPS Act doesn’t allow the US government to convert grants into equity, and it may be that shareholders will find other ways to rebel against the seeming high-pressure tactics from the White House, which included threats by Trump to force the firing of its CEO, in part by withholding some of the company’s federal grants, if he didn’t agree to giving the government a portion of the company in exchange for assistance.This also raises the prospect that Intel, like those other bailed-out companies, has become de facto too big to fail, which could lead to stagnation in the company, especially if the White House goes further in putting its thumb on the scale, forcing more companies, in the US and elsewhere, to do business with the company, despite its often uncompetitive offerings.While there’s a chance that Intel takes this influx of resources and support and runs with it, catching up to competitors that have left it in the dust and rebuilding itself into something a lot more internationally competitive, then, there’s also the chance that it continues to flail, but for much longer than it would have, otherwise, because of that artificial support and government backing.Show Noteshttps://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/did-trump-save-intel-not-really-2025-08-23/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/23/business/trump-intel-us-steel-nvidia.htmlhttps://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/intel-agrees-to-sell-the-us-a-10-stake-trump-says-hyping-great-deal/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganizationhttps://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/government-financial-bailout.asphttps://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amds-desktop-pc-market-share-hits-a-new-high-as-server-gains-slow-down-intel-now-only-outsells-amd-2-1-down-from-9-1-a-few-years-agohttps://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/metals/062625-in-rare-deal-for-us-government-owns-a-piece-of-us-steelhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaulthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the_United_Stateshttps://247wallst.com/special-report/2021/04/07/businesses-run-by-the-us-government/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalizationhttps://www.amtrak.com/stakeholder-faqshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  16:00

  --------

  16:00
• Sterile Insect Technique

  This week we talk about flesh-eating screwworms, weeds, and the US cattle industry.We also discuss genetic modification, procreation, and tsetse flies.Recommended Book: 1177 BC by Eric H ClineTranscriptThe term ‘autocidal control‘ refers to a collection of techniques that are meant to control populations of some type of living thing, animal or plant, by disrupting their procreationary capacity.So rather than attempting to control pest by spraying poisons all over the place, or controlling plants you consider to be invasive weeds by launching huge weed-pulling efforts in the afflicted areas, you might instead figure out how to keep this current generation of pests and weeds from having as many offspring as they might otherwise have, and then repeat the process with the next generation, and the next, and so on, until the unwanted species is either eradicated in the relevant region, or reduced to such a small number that its presence is no longer such a big deal.There are all kinds of approaches one might take in trying to achieve this sort of outcome.Experimental genetic modification measures, for instance, have been tried in, so far at least, limited ways, the idea being to either make the disliked species less competitive in some way (by making them slower, and thus more likely to be eaten by predators, maybe), or by making them less likely to have offspring, or less likely to have fit offspring—the next generation becomes super slow and clumsy, or they’re carriers of a gene that keeps them from procreating as much, or at all.That approach seems like it could be effective, and there are quite a few efforts, globally, that’re working to refine and perfect it with mosquito species in particular, specifically the ones that are carriers of malaria-causing parasites and similar maladies that cause immense harm to local human (and other mammal) populations.There have also been attempts to spray mating grounds with pheromones that disrupt mating behavior, or to use what’s called the Autodissemination Augmented by Males, or ADAM approach, which has been used to decent effect in some trials, and which involves basically just sprinkling a bunch of male mosquitos with pesticide, releasing them into mosquito mating grounds, and then having them deliver those pesticides to the females they mate with.All of these efforts are meant to reduce populations via some procreationary mechanism, while also attempting to ameliorate some of the other issues associated with other, widely used pest- and weed-control approaches. Most of which rely on some kind of chemical being introduced into the right environment, that chemical helping to kill or disrupt these populations, but in many cases also leading to unwanted, and often initially unforeseen side effects, like those chemicals messing with other species, getting into the groundwater and possibly being associated with maladies in humans, and so on.What I’d like to talk about today is another approach, the sterile insect technique, why it’s become so popular in recent decades, and how it’s being used, today, to address a burgeoning population of a pest that was previously eliminated in North America using this technique, but which has recently become a problem, once more.—The New World screwworm fly is thus named because its larvae, its baby offspring, are planted in warm-blooded animals. These offspring eat not just dead tissues, like the maggots of other flies, but healthy tissues as well.These maggots are often deposited near wounds, like cuts or scrapes, but also injuries caused by the castration or dehorning of cattle, or orifices and other sensitive areas with soft tissue, like the corner of a host’s eye.They don’t typically infest humans, but it does happen, and they’re most likely to be found on wild and domesticated mammals, the females of the species depositing somewhere between 250 and 500 eggs in the flesh of their hosts, the maggots screwing their way deeper into their host’s flesh as they grow, burrowing and eating for the next three to seven days, at which point they fall off and enter the next stage of their lifecycle. By that point the host may already be dead, depending on the extent of the damage these things manage to cause in the interim.These flies were originally found across the Americas and on some Caribbean islands, and they have long been a headache for cattle ranchers in particular, as they will sometimes infect one cow or goat, and then work their way through the entire herd in relatively short order, causing enough damage to seriously injure or kill a whole lot of the rancher’s stock.As a result, humans have been trying to get rid of these things for ages, but nothing seemed to make much of a dent in their populations until the emergence of what’s called the sterile insect technique, which is exactly what it sounds like: a method of autocidal control that involves sterilizing members of the species, usually the males, and then releasing them back into the population.Variations on this concept were developed by a few different researchers in a few different places around the world in the lead-up to WWII, but just after that conflict, scientists working at the US Department of Agriculture realized that they could use x-rays to reliably sterilize male screwworm flies, and that if they did this to a large number of them, then released those males into the local population of screwworm flies, to the point where there are more sterilized males than non-sterilized ones, that would serve to dramatically reduce the size of the next generation. If you then repeat this over and over again, you can eventually wipe out the species in a given region, as they successfully showed in the early 1950s by eradicating all the screwworms on Sanibel Island in Florida.The same technique was then used to kill all the screwworms on the island of Curacao, off the coast of Venezuela—that kill-off achieved in just seven weeks. Over the next few decades, sterilized male flies were then released across other afflicted US states, and both Mexico and Belize were able to kill all their screwworms in the 1980s, followed by Central America in the 1990s.This approach was also applied to other pests, almost always those that either spread disease to humans, or threatened local industries, like cattle or agricultural industries.For instance, tsetse flies, carriers of a parasite that causes sleeping sickness, were entirely or almost entirely eradicated from Tanzania, Zanzibar, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, and Uganda between the 1940s and late-1990s, Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, the carriers of dengue and yellow fever, were sterilized by a bacteria called Wolbachia in Queensland, Australia, in the late-20-teens, which reduced the populations of this disease-carrier in trial areas by 80%, and Japan eradicated the melon fly, an agricultural pest, in 1993.This approach to pest-control has become so popular that dozens of facilities have been set up in countries around the world, exclusively to breed and sterilize different species, which can then be shipped to where they will be released. The first of these facilities was built in Mexico in the 1960s, where Mexican fruit flies were bred and then shipped for release in Texas.It’s maybe fitting then that a new round of construction is happening, today, intending to combat the renewed presence of screwworms in Mexico, which have been making their way up into Texas via these two nations’ cattle industries.The US Department of Agriculture recently announced that it will be building a sterile screwworm fly facility in Texas, which has suffered due to the US’s recent decisions to halt the import of cattle from across the border in Mexico due to issues with screwworms hitching a ride on that cattle stock, and thus infiltrating US herds. The government tried several times to drop this cessation of imports, as the US cattle industry is pretty reliant on those imports, but each time they tried, new screwworm infestations were found, and the import halt was put back into place.US cattle populations are already at their lowest level in decades, and that’s impacting meat and dairy prices, while also putting other warm-blooded animals in the afflicted regions, especially Texas, at risk.The folks behind the new facility have said they hope to be up and running in relatively short order, aiming to be releasing sterile male New World screwworms into the wild within a year. This deployment will operate in tandem with other, more direct efforts, like fly traps and parasite-sniffing dogs stationed at ports of entry.The concerns here are not just theoretical: screwworms alone cause an estimated $1.5 billion in damage each year, and the cost of implementing a sterilization program of this kind usually adds up to something like a billion dollars, spread across decades; not a bad return on investment.These programs are not universally effective, though, as in some rare cases non-irradiated males have accidentally been shipped to their intended mating location, temporarily inflating rather than deflating population numbers. And while these programs are relatively cheap to operate on scale, the cost of producing enough sterilized males to make such an effort effective can be prohibitive when aimed at smaller regions, or when attempted by governments or agencies without the budget to see what can sometimes be a long-term project through.That said, this approach does seem to work very well when done correctly, and while its ecosystem impact is not zero, as, for instance, predators who eat these pests might suddenly find themselves without one of their staple food sources, which can lead to knock-on effects across the food web, it does seem to be one of the least foodweb ripple-producing approaches, as genetic modifications can theoretically lead to far more elaborate unforeseen consequences, and the widespread spraying of chemicals has semi-regularly led to die-offs and maladies in other local species, in addition to sometimes causing long-term, even fatal health problems for humans who rely on local food or water sources.Show Noteshttps://archive.is/20250815192422/https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/usda-build-texas-facility-fight-flesh-eating-screwworms-2025-08-15/https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2025/08/how-to-stop-flesh-eating-parasite-from-devastating-us-cattle-government-will-breed-billions-of-flies.htmlhttps://apnews.com/article/fly-factories-flesheating-parasite-cattle-texas-429ce91225bbab4a45c9040f1be356a5https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochliomyia_hominivoraxhttps://archive.is/14Rdkhttps://archive.is/afmt2https://archive.is/QfTvGhttps://archive.is/dxbcZhttps://www.oregonlive.com/business/2025/08/how-to-stop-flesh-eating-parasite-from-devastating-us-cattle-government-will-breed-billions-of-flies.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_insect_techniquehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sterile_insect_technique_trialshttps://web.archive.org/web/20210416164524/http://www-iswam.iaea.org/drd/refs_files/195_The-Area-wide-SIT-Screwworm.pdfhttps://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/sterile-insect-technique-used-to-suppress-mosquito-disease-vectors-in-floridahttps://www.cdc.gov/mosquitoes/mosquito-control/genetically-modified-mosquitoes.htmlhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-30722-9https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4313646/ This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  13:39

  --------

  13:39
• AI CapEx

  This week we talk about tech bubbles, building moats, and infrastructure investment.We also discuss capital expenditure, data centers, and employee compensation.Recommended Book: The Art of Gathering by Priya ParkerTranscriptMany technology booms have early periods in which innovators have a first-mover advantage, and a lot of what happens in their industry is informed by the decisions those innovators make.After that—depending on the technology, but this is common enough to be considered a trend—after that there tends to be a period of build-out and consolidation amongst the people and business entities that survived that initial, innovation-focused throw-down.In the context of personal computers, this moment saw computer-makers like Microsoft and Apple scramble to pivot from figuring out what an operating system should look like and whether or not to use mice to navigate user interfaces, to a period in which they were rushing to scale-up the manufacture of now-essential, but previously comparably rare components: suitable screens for their monitors, chips that could power their increasingly graphical machines, and the magnetic materials necessary to produce floppy disks and spindle-based hard drives.There’s an initial period in which new ideas and approaches provide these entities with a moat that protects them against competition, in other words, but then the game they’re playing changes, the rules are more fully understood and to some degree locked into place and agreed upon, and instead of competing for the biggest, most brazen new ideas, they lock onto one set of ideas that seemed to be the best of what’s available at that moment and build on those, iterating them at a regular cadence, but focusing especially on scaling them.So at this second stage, they’re investing in the ability to out-produce their competition in some way, so they can eventually bypass that competition and (they hope) safely increase their prices and make a profit, as opposed to just larger and larger revenues with equal or greater expenses, continuing to be reliant on investor injections of capital, rather than generating their own surplus returns.By many analysts’ and insiders’ estimates, we’ve just entered that second stage in the generative AI industry. That’s the sort of AI that generates text and images and code and such, and it’s increasingly becoming a sort of commodity, rather than a new, hot things that few companies can offer the market.What I’d like to talk about today are the increasingly massive financial figures associated with this industry’s shift to that second stage of development, and why some of those insiders and analysts are voicing fresh concerns that this could all lead to a bubble, and possibly an historically large one.—There are many ways we could measure the growth of the AI industry over the years.The US market size, for instance, which is a measure of the value of AI-oriented companies based on how much shares of their company cost or would cost on the open market, has ballooned from just over $100 billion in 2022 to an estimated $174 billion in 2025. That figure is expected to grow at a not quite 20% compound annual growth rate through 2034, which, if accurate, would put this market, in the US alone, at more than $850 billion.Another metric we might use is that of capital expenditure, or capex, in this corner of the tech industry, which refers to the amount of money AI companies are using to buy, upgrade, or maintain their long-term assets, like new computer chips or the data centers they fill with those chips.The seven most valuable US tech companies—Meta, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, NVIDIA, and Broadcom (that last spot formerly held by Tesla, which was dropped from this designation in late-2024)—just those seven companies have spent $102.5 billion on capex this last financial quarter (and most of that was from just four of them, Meta, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon, the remainder only spending something like $6.7 billion).That’s a staggering amount of money, and due to a recent drop in consumer demand—the money individual US citizens spend on things like food and clothes and smartphones and cars and all the other things people buy—AI-related capex, spending by these massive US tech companies, has added more to GDP growth than consumer spending for the past two quarters.All the things all the people in the US bought over the past two quarters did not cost as much, in aggregate, as what these companies spent during the same period, on new and existing assets. That’s pretty wild.And it’s the consequence, partly, of the shift in these companies’ focus from providing goods and services that relied heavily on people—salary and stock compensation, basically, which is not a capex expense, because its spent on employees, not stuff—to spending heavily on all that infrastructure that they believe will be required to help them compete with those other companies that are also frantically investing in the same.Whomever can built the biggest, baddest, most reliable and powerful data centers, and can get the AI-optimized chips to fill them, will have an advantage over their opponents in the new, developing tech world paradigm, it’s thought, so they’re pumping gobs of resources into exactly those sorts of assets, hoping to get ahead, build an insurmountable advantage, and put their competition out of business—or failing that, to establish themselves as the AI Coca-Cola, versus their opposition’s AI Mr. Pip.Similar dynamics are playing out elsewhere, especially in China, where the market could reach a value approximating today’s US AI market in 3-5 years, and several times that, up to $1.4 trillion, by 2030—though like all of these figures, it depends on how we choose to measure these sorts of things, including what counts as an AI company, and in China, several of their major AI players are heavily involved in automation, robotics, which itself is expected to be a $5 trillion industry in that country by 2050.Europe’s market is comparably smaller, as is its overall tech industry, but the AI market is now just shy of 15% of its total tech sector, up from 12% in 2022, and AI startups are attracting about a quarter of all VC funding in the bloc right now—so they’re starting from a less spendy start, but like pretty much everywhere the necessary knowledge and manufacturing base exists at the moment, the European AI market is growing a lot faster than anyone would have expected even just five years ago.And there are real-deal innovations coming out of this tech; these investments are flooding into AI companies because these technologies, this version of them, the generative AI stuff, has completely rewired the programming world, AI bots and agents helping coders achieve a lot more, faster, and non-coders make things they wouldn’t have been able to build lacking these tools, imperfect as many of those tools are, under the hood.We’re also seeing an explosion of other sorts of generated content, and the injection of these tools that make such content into Hollywood studios and consulting firms and government agencies, and everything in between, is causing equal parts panic and excitement, depending on whether you’re one of the people who feels like they might be laid off soon, replaced by software, or if you’re someone who profits from all those layoffs, and the payments from the companies that hope to save money by conducting them, replacing their comparably expensive employees with cheaper AI tools.Things have gotten so wild that Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg has started offering compensation packages ranging from $200 million to more than a billion dollars to top AI talent. Meta’s AI spending is already massive, and could hit $72 billion this year, but the company has said it could hit $100 billion in 2026, while Microsoft’s leadership suggested their 2025 spending of $30 billion could balloon to $120 billion in 2026.OpenAI recently offered their employees large bonuses, in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars range, to counter those sorts of overtures from the likes of Meta, but there’s a lot of money flying around from all direction right now, much of it aimed at more AI infrastructure, or the relatively few people on the planet who understand this tech well enough to make a competitive difference in this industry.That’s…a lot of money. There’s just so much spending happening, so many resources sloshing around in this one space right now, and all this investment is predicated on the idea that AI will change everything, we’re stepping into a new paradigm, and those who control the AI, will basically own the next game. So they’re all trying to set things up so they win the next game, or at least have the best hand possible when it arrives.There have been increasingly loud arguments, made by long-time generative AI critics, but also, more recently, ardent AI boosters, that we might be running up against a wall of what these things can do for us; this version of the AI concept, at least.And these arguments got louder with OpenAI’s release of their long-teased GPT-5 model, which some expected to be true AGI, human-grade, flexible, omni-capable intelligence, while others thought it might be a mono-focused superintelligence of some kind: the perfect coder, the perfect image generator, something like that.What users got was not that. It seems to be better at some things, still not great at others.This was an incredibly expensive model to produce—the training costs alone are estimated to be something like a half-billion dollars, and that’s just a portion of the total costs of creating this sort of model—and what OpenAI served up, instead of something groundbreaking, was a slightly better, though in some ways seemingly the same or worse version of what everyone’s been playing with for years, now.There’s room for disagreement on this, as while there are some more objective tests for measuring models’ capabilities, a lot of it is circumstantial, and depends, among other things, on what you’re trying to do, how the systems are prompted, and so on.There’s also something to be said for cost-reductions and other sorts of benefits of new models, beyond raw power and capability.But this thud of a launch for what was supposed to be a sea-changing system has led to the ringing of some alarm bells, industry watchers wondering if we might be careening toward a bubble, at a moment in which, again, this segment of the tech industry is contributing more to the US’s GDP than all of consumer spending, combined.A bubble, to be clear, wouldn’t mean the collapse of the US economy, or even these companies, necessarily. It would mean a lot of AI entities going under, a lot of invested money lost, and a lot of people who suddenly don’t have jobs.Almost always there are a few players in these bubbly spaces that make it to the other side, though—eBay, for instance, survived the dotcom bubble intact, as did Amazon, PayPal, and Adobe, among many others.But the grand shakeout, the sifting for those that could survive a mammoth downturn, and the destruction of the rest, that’s a tough moment for those directly connected to the bubble-popping industry, and those adjacent to it: the folks who feed the employees who are now laid off, the suppliers of the light switches that go in all the data centers, etc.There are ripple effects to this sort of bubble pop moment, then, and though such sifting might be long-term beneficial, because it maybe weeds out some of the dead-weight and makes things more efficient in that space five or ten years in the future, that won’t help the folks who lose a lot of money when the industry shrinks, including those who have their money at banks that made bad bets, or insurance companies that did the same, with their customers resources.Everything’s great for everyone when these sorts of high-risk, high-reward bets are paying out, but when the golden goose of huge anticipated future profits disappears, that shakeout leaves a lot of entities and people with emptier pockets.None of which suggests this is going to happen; there’s a chance that we continue to see better and better models using the current, generative AI technology, or that some of these companies successfully pivot to another AI approach that bears better, next-step fruit, and things just keep getting more and more powerful and less and less expensive for everyone; that could theoretically lead to some pretty cool, broadly beneficial things.This sort of risk is lurking in the background of everything that’s happening, though, and while upbeat marketing messages and predictions about how cool it will all be when the next-step tools arrive can keep things going for a while, even lacking major milestones that can be pointed at to justify those claims, at some point we’ll probably need to see something really, truly different and novel, or the bottom could fall out, leaving those who were more careful tip-toeing into this collection of technologies looking less like they’re being left behind, and more like they took smart precautions and made safe, reliable investments.Show Noteshttps://www.precedenceresearch.com/us-artificial-intelligence-markethttps://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/united-stateshttps://techcrunch.com/2024/12/23/ai-startups-attracted-25-of-europes-vc-funding/https://archive.is/20250809000924/https://www.theverge.com/command-line-newsletter/756561/openai-employees-bonus-sam-altman-ai-talent-warshttps://paulkedrosky.com/honey-ai-capex-ate-the-economy/https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/silicon-valley-ai-infrastructure-capex-cffe0431https://archive.is/20250809000924/https://www.theverge.com/command-line-newsletter/756561/openai-employees-bonus-sam-altman-ai-talent-warshttps://archive.is/20250808224658/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-08-07/tesla-disbands-dojo-supercomputer-team-in-blow-to-ai-efforthttps://fortune.com/2025/08/04/billionaire-anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-ai-staffers-poaching-meta-mark-zuckerberg-100k-six-figure-salaries-openai-sam-altman/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1e02vx55wpohttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/31/business/dealbook/meta-microsoft-ai-spending-shares.htmlhttps://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-meta-billion-dollars-ai-poaching-failed/ This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  17:44

  --------

  17:44
• Dynamic Pricing

  This week we talk about surge pricing, Walmart, and the Robinson-Patman Act.We also discuss personal data, AC settings, and Delta’s earnings call.Recommended Book: How the World Became Rich by Mark Koyama and Jared RubinTranscriptThe US Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 is also called the Anti-Price Discrimination Act, and it was passed to make it illegal for a product supplier to charge different prices to different customers.So a company that makes candy bars wouldn’t be allowed to charge one price to most of their customers, all the smaller and mid-sized convenience stores and mom-and-pop grocery stores, for instance, and then a lower price to the big stores, the Walmarts and Amazons of the world.The concern was that these larger players, which at the time this law was passed were burgeoning grocery stores like A&P, would be able to achieve a monopolistic position in the market for these goods, these slightly lower prices giving them one more advantage over their smaller competitors.During the four decades or so of this Act’s enforcement, small grocery stores has prices that were, on average, about 1% higher than those offered by their large competitors, and the eight largest grocery store chains only captured about 25% of all grocery sales in the US—essentially every city and town of any size had at least one small grocery store, and most had several of them, during this period. It was a very competitive market.During the Reagan administration in the 80s, though, enforcement was abandoned, as the folks in charge of that enforcement were convinced this Act was holding back growth; they saw it as a handout to small businesses at the expense of big business, so while it technically remained on the books, they just stopped enforcing it, and the big businesses in these spaces got the message pretty quickly.Walmart was the first big business to really lean into the new powers afforded them by this fresh governmental stance, and that led to it becoming the country’s largest grocery store chain by 2001, and other big grocery brands, like Kroger and Safeway, began to do the same, consolidating all their buying so they could put in huge orders like Walmart was able to put in, and that allowed them to demand lower prices, which in turn allowed them to dramatically increase profits and gobble up their smaller competition.All of which led to the emergence of food deserts across the country, a term that was coined in 1995 to refer to areas where there are simply no grocery stores within a reasonable distance of relatively large populations of people, because smaller grocery stores can no longer compete, even when they’re the only player in town; folks have to travel to the larger chain stores, and have no real options closer to home, which can result in food precariousness, and situations in which the only nearby food options are unhealthy ones—the snacks at gas stations, for instance.This same general pattern played out across all retail spaces, including pharmacies and bookstores and athletic supply stores, and between 1982 and 2017, the total market share of independent retailers in the US dropped from 53% to 22%.Which in some ways is great at the federal level, as—and this is what the Reagan administration seemed to want, back in the 80s—big businesses can grow a lot faster and bigger than small businesses, and that can lead to outsized GDP numbers, and other such macro-scale figures.Unfortunately, while independent retailers tend to keep nearly half of the revenue they pull in within their local community, major chains only keep something like 14% in the local community—so the shift from independent to chain retailers has had a deleterious impact on communities across the US, in the sense of having less competition, having food and other sorts of product deserts, and in terms of tax revenues and overall economic wealth being sapped from these areas and moved to other places, creating some relatively few winners and a whole lot of losers, in the process.What I’d like to talk about today is another type of variable pricing, this one more directly aimed at consumers, and enabled, at least in its modern incarnation, by big data and the devices we use every day.—Dynamic pricing refers to changing the price of goods or services based on all sorts of variables.Demand or surge pricing, for instance, might see the price of a bus ticket or rideshare ride with Uber cost more during rush-hour, the idea being that there are only so many bus seats and only so many available rideshare rides to go around, and when everyone’s either trying to get to work or get home from work, there will be a lot more people wanting these finite number of seats and rides than there are seats and rides available.Upping the prices, then, is a means of determining who wants these things the most, because they’re willing to pay at times massively inflated prices for something that would cost far less in an hour or two, once the rush has subsided.Similar price-inflation occurs during peak energy-use periods, and energy companies usually explain this price-bump by suggesting that it encourages their customers to use more energy when it’s abundant and cheap, and to use less of it when it’s scarce and expensive.On very hot days when everyone is using their air conditioners to stay cool, then, inflated energy prices might encourage them to be less aggressive with their AC settings, keeping their indoor temperatures at a more reasonable level, which in turn ensures there’s more energy available for everyone and less risk of brownouts or blackouts.This pricing strategy is often seen by those on the receiving end of such price-bumps, as price gouging, which refers to companies taking advantage of temporary variables to massively inflate their prices, at times to abusive levels that they can justify by pointing at those variables and a desire to moderate supply and demand.So if there’s a big convention in town, local hotels can argue that they’re doubling or tripling their prices because there are not enough rooms for everyone who wants rooms on those days, but this could also be construed as a money-grab, these hotel companies knowing that some people won’t be able to avoid paying for a place to stay during the convention they have to attend, so they’re taking advantage of customers who have no choice but to pay up.We saw similar dynamics play out globally during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, when folks who had high-quality masks on hand were able to charge incredible sums for those masks because production hadn’t yet scaled up, so they were relatively scarce and thus precious, and these people and companies with the right product at the right time knew they could get away with charging many times the actual sticker-price of that product, because some people would feel they had no choice but to pay it.Each situation of this kind will feel reasonable and suitable for the supply-demand situation to some, and completely unreasonable and abusive to others, and it’s possible to have a bit of both in many such situations—the companies in question actually want to manage a scarce supply of something, but are also keen to make as much money as possible while doing it.Dynamic pricing has become even more common in online marketplaces like Amazon, where it’s not just holidays or events or the sudden emergence of global pandemics that can impact demand and thus, the prices retailers can get away with charging would-be customers.Amazon has algorithms that keep track of what competitors are charging for the goods they offer, what sort of demand the market is seeing for said goods, what inventory looks like—if they have a lot or very few of something available to sell—and all sorts of other factors that might reasonably impact the price of a product, even a little bit.As of 2024, the price of a product listed on Amazon changes several times a day, in some cases every 10 minutes, and they make about 2.5 million prices changes every single day, adjusting for those aforementioned micro-scale variables, on a product-by-product basis, but also adjusting their entire catalog so that relatively uncommon goods have higher prices, but common goods have lower prices, which means customers shopping around will tend to see Amazon’s lower-priced goods more often than the higher-priced ones, which in turn can adjust their perception of the company and its marketplace in a favorable, lower-price direction.Amazon also has access to just a silly amount of data about their customers, some of it scooped up while we surf their sites, and some bought from other data-aggregators. And this allows Amazon, just like most tech companies and retailers, these days to track our behavior, watching what we click on, how long we linger on different products or product types, noticing our searches and contextualizing all of it with where we live, what we’ve purchased in the past, and so on.The company isn’t very transparent about how it uses all this personal data, but while it’s been been speculated that they might adjust prices based on our individual profiles, most evidence suggests they mostly use it to determine what we’re shown—what products are promoted to us, basically, as opposed to setting prices based on what it thinks we’ll pay, as individuals.The same generally seems to be true of other retailers right now, though there are concerns that this might change at some point in the near-future, as new technologies, some based on AI, enable the more-rapid and sophisticated crunching of data, and the consequent individualization of prices, even in person.US airline Delta, for instance, recently announced that it would be using AI to help it boost profits by charging different customers different prices for the same airline seat.These prices would be based on their customer profile, which means all the data scooped up by Delta from various sources, including things like past purchases, regular flight schedules, and how much money their systems think each customer makes and has available to spend.The president of the company said on a recent earnings call that they’ve been running a pilot project for this approach that resulted in about 3% of ticket sales being sold based on this model over the past 6 months, and by the end of the year, their goal is to increase that to 20% of tickets.In theory, this sort of system could be good for some customers some of the time, because it could drop prices on tickets that customers wouldn’t want to, or wouldn’t be able to pay for, otherwise. If I’m considering a trip, but the tickets are more expensive than I want to pay, these systems could theoretically recognize this and offer them to me at a price they can afford to sell them at, and which I can afford. That could lead to more ticket sales, and thus, higher profits.The evidence on the ground with these sorts of systems usually points at price increases, not decreases, though: the companies using these models to see how much they can get per unit, not using them to sell more units at lower profit margins.In other words, usually it’s wealthier consumers who get the better deals, as these companies want to keep them coming back, spending larger sums of money on glitzier products and services over time, while poorer consumers have fewer options, and will thus tend to pay whatever they’re told they have to pay.Delta spent most of July 2025 trying to control the backlash that erupted following that earnings call, and they’re now saying, to the press but also in formal letters to government watchdogs who expressed concerns about what they said they planned to do, that no no no, we misspoke, we’re not using individualized data to set prices, it’s all good, don’t worry about it.That announcement from Delta came shortly after lawmakers announced they would be pushing to get a new act, the Stop AI Price Gouging and Wage Fixing Act, passed into law, and though some US Senators have said they’ll block such efforts by Delta, other airlines, including Azul, WestJet, Virgin Atlantic, and VivaAerobus are also clients of the Israeli company, Fetcherr, that Delta has been working with to run their AI pricing pilot program—and representatives from Fetcherr have claimed that this pricing model is irresistible to those in charge of these companies, so it will probably take over the airline industry relatively quickly, and they plan to expand into other industries soon.These sorts of pricing models aren’t typically very popular with customers, and efforts by Walmart and other big grocery chains to remove static in-store pricing labels and replace them with digital versions, or in some extreme cases to remove them entirely and rely on apps on customers’ phone to show prices on goods, raised similar alarm bells, as dynamic pricing can allow the store to more rapidly change their prices based on demand, like Uber’s surge pricing model, but maybe applied to flour or cough medicine instead of rideshare seats, and in-app pricing could allow them to show different prices to different people shopping for the same thing at the same time—again, based on income, buying patterns, and so on.Walmart and everyone else dabbling in this space has, like Delta, claimed they intend no such dynamism in their pricing, even as their CEOs in some cases continue to brag to investors about the possibilities. As a result, there seems to be a decent chance we’ll see the large-scale deployment of these sorts of models in at least some customer-facing industries within the next year or two, some company deciding to more fully test the regulatory establishment’s appetite for challenging this push into a new pricing paradigm that would, theoretically at least, allow big companies to earn still-higher profits and grow even larger.Show Noteshttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1HQoQhvfVv8p0XmOdDIiWTnmd2YM_za07/viewhttps://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-price-changes-2018-8https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_pricinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_pricinghttps://www.archeraffiliates.com/post/amazon-dynamic-pricinghttps://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/delta-denies-using-ai-to-come-up-with-inflated-personalized-prices/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/07/will-ai-end-cheap-flights-critics-attack-deltas-predatory-ai-pricing/https://www.the-sun.com/money/14839597/walmart-kroger-electronic-labels-dynamic-pricing-demand-wendyshttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/business/kroger-walmart-facial-recognition-prices.htmlhttps://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/what-is-dynamic-pricinghttps://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/12/food-deserts-robinson-patman/680765/https://www.indieretailermonth.com/statisticshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson%E2%80%93Patman_Act This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  17:15

  --------

  17:15

More News podcasts

Trending News podcasts

About Let's Know Things

Let's Know Things: Podcasts in Family