Category: Current Affairs
Red Flags for Waymo in Boston
The British Locomotives Act of 1865 contained a red flag provision for cars:
…while any Locomotive is in Motion, [one of the three required attendants] shall precede such Locomotive on Foot by not less than Sixty Yards, and shall carry a Red Flag constantly displayed, and shall warn the Riders and Drivers of Horses of the Approach of such Locomotives, and shall signal the Driver thereof when it shall be necessary to stop, and shall assist Horses, and Carriages drawn by Horses, passing the same.
Not to be outdone the Boston City Council is debating a law on self-driving cars that includes:
Section 6. Human Safety Operator
Any permit process must include the following requirements: (a) an Autonomous Vehicle operating in the City of Boston shall not transport passengers or goods unless a human safety operator is physically present in the vehicle and has the ability to monitor the performance of the vehicle and intervene if necessary, including but not limited to taking over immediate manual control of the vehicle or shutting off the vehicle; and (b) that Autonomous Vehicles and human safety operators must meet all applicable local, state and federal requirements.
The EU-USA trade deal
Sorry people, but you can fill in the links with Perplexity and Grok, both great for this purpose.
Olivier Blanchard is upset that Europe got such a raw deal, various people in the FT agree. I would say that is itself data about broader European economic and security policies, and needs to be taken very seriously. The Europeans are not stupid negotiators by any means, rather they are in a weak negotiating position for reasons that are largely their own fault and reflect underlying weaknesses of their basic economic and political model.
You can hate what Trump did, but for a “stupid” administration they, by their own standards at least, did a remarkably good job of it.
Justin Wolfers seems upset that Trump is raising taxes on Americans. (I am too!) But that feels kind of weird to me. And it is nice to see that Europeans get somewhat lower taxes, though many European leaders are upset about that. They should in fact buy more from the United States, and their non-tariff barriers are significant.
Conor Sen notes that the USA has come up with a multi-trillion revenue source that does not seem to diminish corporate profitability, https://x.com/conorsen/status/1949785522567549283?s=61, and he is wondering how exactly people will react to that.
We can all agree that negative externalities are what should be taxed!
But those policies typically are unpopular, so in some instances you will understand public affairs more clearly by switching to the “what will be done?” perspective, rather than the “what should be done?” stance.
My best guess is that these tariffs will stick for the most part, and that you are seeing some early major steps for how the U.S. will resolve its fiscal position. Higher inflation will come too, and fiscally we will muddle through, albeit with notably lower real wages.
(To be clear, for a long time I have stated that I prefer to cut back on government-subsidized health care, rather than to lower real wages through these other means. You can always use the extra money and try to buy back some health! But I also never have thought I was going to get my way. When Matt Yglesias tells you that “health care polls well,” you should take that seriously and Matt also should realize a bit that puts him in more of the pro-Trump, pro-tariff camp than he might like to think.)
I think a Democratic administration, whenever we get one next, would rather spend the revenue from the tariffs than repeal them. By then the tariffs also will be what I call “emotionally internalized.” And the Democrats have not loved free trade for a long time anyway, despite their current rhetorical moves toward criticizing the Trumpers.
So most of all we need to revise our estimates of what the political equilibrium looks like here. We are receiving major pieces of information, and we must update our vision of the world to come.
From the comments, on language preferences
Those wanting good, efficient government are not doing so well this century.
That is from Paco. The rest of the comment is a bit more specific:
In Spain, language politics are a key way to get your friends government jobs: When you manage to make regional language proficiency mandatory on any of said jobs, from schoolteacher up, and make the regional language the only language schools will teach on, you basically get a political cleansing of the institutions. Catalonia also pays those people quite a bit better than other regions: Not good for the budget (although now they get to hand the debt to Spain while they keep the taxes!), but it’s great for clientelism. Love your region, speak your regional language over all, get rewarded economically.
This is why you have similar schemes in every region that can get away with it: It’s just jobs for your friends. But that also translates to worse English for everyone, a language that might actually help do better in the long run. They call it maintaining the culture, I call it grift.
Then we’ll hear them all complain about Madrid’s corruption, when the 3% “friend tax” on basically any catalonian government contract, or anything large that needed a permit was documented for decades. It’s a key disease all across Spain. Blaiming Madrid made great sense circa 1920s or 30s, where it was just a bureaucratic capital with no industry of any sort. But now it’s the largest economic engine of the nation, largely because they are the closest to an economically liberal area.
As for the economists, it’s easy: They are inclined to any pro-independent movement that claims oppression, for any reason. At that point that cause is on their team, and careful analysis disappears. I bet you can all find an example or two of people justifying the waste and corruption elsewhere, just due to association.
Daunt tote bags as status symbols
Her husband, Jimmy, is carrying the blue tote bag through Victoria Park Village, where three other Daunt totes bags are spotted within a 20-minute window despite there being no store nearby.
Locality doesn’t matter. “I have a friend with a bookshop in Italy who follows Daunt Books on Instagram so I gave her a spare from my collection. She was so excited,” Marta Timoncini said. At 50, she says she is “too old to make a fashion statement” but simply thinks the design is nice and enjoys the secret pocket to hold her phone. She also said she likes to flaunt her love of her beloved store.
She is perhaps an outlier. A team member at the Broadway store for Jimmy Fairly said people come in just to buy the tote bag, which is free with every purchase, but costs £20 on its own. The shop is capitalising on the frenzy, selling limited-edition summer and winter versions.
The tote is another success story of virality: people walk around trendy London hotspots and hawk-eyed trend watchers satirise them in meme pages on social media. “That’s when I knew we had made it. We are cool now, it is viral, that is amazing,” the team member said.
Here is more from the Times of London, also covering Trader Joe’s tote bags as a status symbol. I now own about twenty-five of these bags? Via Rebecca Lowe.
China kindergarten fact of the day
The number of children in Chinese kindergartens has fallen by a quarter in four years, prompting the closure of tens of thousands of preschools in the country as a precipitous drop in births hits the education system.
Enrolments in China’s kindergartens have declined by 12mn children between 2020 and 2024, from a peak of 48mn, according to data from the country’s ministry of education. The number of kindergartens, serving Chinese children aged 3-5, has also fallen by 41,500 from a high of nearly 295,000 in 2021.
Here is more from the FT.
Should Catalonia receive more financial independence?
Jesús details how Spain already operates one of the most decentralized fiscal systems in the world, “more latitude than most U.S. states,” he notes, yet Catalonia now seeks the bespoke privileges long enjoyed by the Basque Country and Navarra. The Regional Authority Index rates how much self‑rule and shared rule each country’s sub‑national governments actually wield. In its last update the index places Spain as the most decentralized unitary state in the sample and fourth overall among 96 countries.
Those northern provinces collect every euro on their own soil and forward a modest remittance to the central treasury, a setup that Fernández‑Villaverde brands “a Confederate relic.” Extending it to Catalonia, he argues, would hollow out Spain’s common‑pool finances, deepen inter‑regional resentment and erode the principle of equal citizenship, while turning the national revenue service into little more than a mailbox for provincial checks.
That is from the episode summary of a podcast of Rasheed Griffith with Jesús Fernandez-Villaverde. On the Catalan language, matters look grim in any case:
Right now around only 55% of births in Catalonia are born from a mother that was born, actually not even Catalan, that was born in Spain. That basically tells you that only 40, 45%, perhaps even a little bit less of mothers that were born in Spain speak Catalan at home. At this moment, I will say that less than 30, 28% of kids born in Cataluña, perhaps even less, will speak Catalan at home.
It amazes me how many people ignore the reality that a host of leading economists led or endorsed a constitution-violating movement to separate Catalonia from the rest of Spain and not long ago. The podcast will tell you more. It is also interesting throughout, including on Spanish history since the 19th century.
Why does renovating the Fed cost so much?
Here is a good WSJ piece on that question. Excerpt:
For example, members of the fine arts commission in 2020 recommended that the Fed use more marble to better match the original buildings. The Fed had initially proposed using more glass in an effort to represent the Fed’s transparency, according to the commission’s meeting minutes. The Fed amended the design to incorporate more marble.
To be clear, I am fine with an unabashedly elitist approach to designing or redesigning a central bank building, at least provided one’s domestic politics is able to sustain such a thing. I am glad for instance that the Cleveland Fed is quite a nice building, and I wish more DC architecture were of comparable quality, noting that these days we are not very good at constructing Beaux Arts buildings, and for DC modernist styles do not always fit the surroundings very well, thus creating a broader dilemma.
Horseshoe Theory: Trump and the Progressive Left
Many of Trump’s signature policies overlap with those of the American progressive left—e.g. tariffs, economic nationalism, immigration restrictions, deep distrust of elite institutions, and an eagerness to use the power of the state. Trump governs less like Reagan, more like Perón. As Ryan Bourne notes, this ideological convergence has led many on the progressive left to remain silent or even tacitly support Trump policies, particularly on trade.
“[P]rogressive Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren have chosen to shift blame for Trump’s tariff-driven price hikes onto large businesses. Last week, they dusted off—and expanded—their pandemic-era Price Gouging Prevention Act. While bemoaning Trump’s ‘chaotic’ on-off tariffs, their real ire remains reserved for ‘greedy corporations,’ supposedly exploiting trade policy disruption to pad prices beyond what’s needed to ‘cover any cost increases.’
…The Democrats’ 2025 gouging bill is broader than ever, creating a standing prohibition against ‘grossly excessive’ price hikes—loosely suggested at anything 20 percent above the previous six-month average—but allowing the FTC to pick its price caps ‘using any metric it deems appropriate.’
…Instead of owning the pricing fallout from his trade wars, President Trump can now point to Democratic cries of ‘corporate greed’ and claim their proposed FTC crackdown proves that it’s businesses—not his tariffs—to blame for higher prices.
If these progressives have their way, the public debate flips from ‘tariffs raise prices’ to ‘the FTC must crack down on corporate greed exploiting trade policy reform,’ with Trump slipping off the hook.”
Trump’s political coalition isn’t policy-driven. It’s built on anger, grievance, and zero-sum thinking. With minor tweaks, there is no reason why such a coalition could not become even more leftist. Consider the grotesque canonization of Luigi Mangione, the (alleged) murderer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. We already have a proposed CA ballot initiative named the Luigi Mangione Access to Health Care Act, a Luigi Mangione musical and comparisons of Mangione to Jesus. The anger is very Trumpian.
A substantial share of voters on the left and the right increasingly believe that markets are rigged, globalism is suspect, and corporations are the real enemy. Trump adds nationalist flavor; progressives bring the regulatory hammer. The convergence of left and right in attacking classical liberalism– open markets, limited government, pluralism and the basic rules of democratic compromise–is what worries me the most about contemporary politics.
USA fact of the day
Federal Reserve Board operating expenses have *quadrupled* from 2004 to 2023, reaching ~$1 billion in 2023, according to the Annual Reports of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
That is from Jon Hartley. It is of course correct that the other effects of the Fed far outweigh the size of these expenditures. Nonetheless, it is worth asking, given these numbers, whether the system in place is generating good decisions. That in turn said, we do not currently have an “appropriate set of askers.”
Gross(ery) Confusion
Zephyr Teachout’s NYTs op-ed on grocery store prices is poorly argued.
The food system in the United States is rigged in favor of big retailers and suppliers in several ways. Big retailers often flex their muscles to demand special deals; to make up the difference, suppliers then charge the smaller stores more.
Let’s be clear about what is actually going on. Costco offers its suppliers lower prices in return for bigger orders. There is nothing anti-competitive about volume discounting. Moreover, are firms dismayed or are they eager to sell to big, bad Costco? Google AI gives a good answer:
…firms are eager to sell to Costco because of the immense potential for sales and brand exposure, but they must be prepared to meet stringent requirements, negotiate competitive pricing, and be able to handle high volume and demanding logistics.
Would Americans be better off without Costco? Doubtful given that more than one-quarter of all Americans pay for a Costco membership (either individually or as a family).
Teachout’s idea that suppliers “make up the difference” by charging smaller stores more is also economically incoherent. Profit-maximizing firms already charge what the market will bear. If Costco’s volume justifies a discount, that doesn’t mean suppliers can or should charge higher prices to other buyers. Yes, there are models where costs change with volume but costs could go down with volume and, in any case, those models don’t rely on the folk theory of “making up the difference.”
That’s one of the subtler mistakes. Here’s a more glaring one:
Consider eggs. At the independent supermarket near my apartment, the price for a dozen white eggs last week was $5.99. At a major national retailer a few blocks away, it was $3.99. (For an identical box of cereal, the price difference was $3.) Any number of factors may contribute to a given price, but market power is a particularly consequential one.
Read that again: the firm allegedly abusing market power is the one charging less.
It gets stranger:
New York City has a strong price gouging law on the books, which forbids anyone — suppliers and retailers — from jacking up prices during a state of emergency unless the seller’s own costs have gone up accordingly. The city couldn’t have stopped the bird flu that devastated flocks, but maybe it can stop suppliers from cynically exploiting a crisis to justify exorbitant prices.
This makes two errors. First, she acknowledges it’s not gouging if costs rise—then cites egg prices rising due to the bird flu devastating flocks. That’s literally a textbook case of a supply shock. Maybe some firms exploited the crisis—but eggs rising in price after millions of chickens are killed is the best example you’ve got???
Second, within the span of a few paragraphs, the op-ed veers from claiming large retailers charge prices that are unfairly low to blaming them for charging prices that are too high. I’m surprised she didn’t go for the trifecta and accuse them of colluding to charge the same price.
The America vs. Europe thing, again
From my latest column at The Free Press:
I worry much more about Europe in the longer run. Let’s consider how some of the most important comparisons between America and Europe are likely to change over the next 20 years.
Two of America’s biggest problems are obesity and opioid addiction, with opioid deaths running at about 54,000 a year. Yet both of those problems are getting better. GLP-1 drugs will help us beat back obesity, and finally opioid deaths have begun to decline. If this follows the path of previous drug epidemics, the decline will continue and perhaps accelerate.
More generally, we are entering a new age of fantastic biomedical innovations. These advances likely will help Americans more than Europeans, as Europeans are more likely to be in good shape to begin with, which is why Americans are more likely to need new and better treatments. That is, of course, a ding on America, but it will matter less as time passes.
One major advantage of America is likely to increase with time, and that is one of scale. Americans do things big, think big, and have created some of the world’s largest companies, most obviously in the tech sector, where size is often rewarded. You can see this in the stock market valuations of those tech companies, including Nvidia, which at its current $4 trillion or so valuation is worth more than the entire German stock market. Europe shows few if any signs of catching up in this area, or of having a major presence in the commercial spaces for artificial intelligence. If anything, EU regulations go out of their way to prevent Europe from excelling at tech.
Is tech likely to stop growing in economic and cultural influence? Have we reached peak application for current and future AI models? You can guess at the right answers to all of those questions. They imply that America’s economic lead over Europe will widen.
The brain drain from Europe (and other regions) to the United States seems to be accelerating in the areas of tech and AI, most of all for young people. If you want to do a big, successful start-up, you probably should move to America. End of story. America has major and growing companies in these areas, full of foreigners, and Europe does not.
Of course, a lot of that talent will not pay off right away. Not all of those smart and ambitious individuals will have big commercial hits at the age of 22. But more and more of them will by the age of 40. Europe has lost an increasing number of these people, and won’t be getting most of them back. The continent feels a bit of pain now, but the talent differential will de facto increase, if only due to the mere passage of time and the rising productivity of those people. It is not just about more people leaving; rather, those who already have moved to America will make a bigger and bigger difference over the next 10 to 15 years.
And:
The more general lack of European economic dynamism also is an issue that worsens with time. One recent economic study found that “Europeans switch jobs much less frequently, and restructuring is much rarer.” That is, of course, a problem, but in the short run the associated difficulties are not so large. If your economy remains static, after a year of progress elsewhere it is only missing out on so much beneficial change. After five years it is missing out on much more, and after 10 years much more yet. The more static and less dynamic nature of European economies naturally increases in size as a problem with the passage of time.
Population aging and low birth rates are another problem that will make it harder for Europe to catch up. The U.S. total fertility rate is about 1.63, whereas in the European Union it is about 1.38. Over time, this will make it harder for Europe to afford their current system of pensions. The major European populations also will be older than the American population, and probably as a result less innovative. This difference has only started to bite, and it is likely to grow in import.
I consider some other important issues, such as immigration, at the link.
Can we internalize the externalities from public bathrooms?
Throne’s solution relies on gating access to their facilities, but in a way the company’s founders insist means they remain accessible to all. Users are associated with a unique identifier via an app or text message, so dumbphones work too. (In rare cases, those who don’t have a phone can get a keycard.) If you mess up the bathroom, you’re given a warning, and if you’re a repeat offender, you could lose your potty privileges. It’s similar to an Uber rider score, says Throne Labs Chief Executive Fletcher Wilson.
Throne bathrooms also have smoke sensors to detect if someone smokes in them, and occupancy sensors. They limit any given session to 10 minutes. After a warning, the doors will pop open. Everyone is asked upon entry to rate the cleanliness of the bathroom. If a bathroom needs cleaning, a Throne employee is dispatched for a cleanup.
Here is more from the WSJ. Via Adam B.
Naveen Nvn’s ideological migration (from my email)
I started following American politics only in 2010/2011, which is two years after his [Buckley’s] death, and I was in India at that time.
Plus, I was very liberal at that time.
Around 2018-19ish, I was pushed into a centrist stance because I was appalled by wokeness, especially on campuses. I was in graduate school in the US at that time. Although I didn’t experience wokeness advocacy in the classroom except two or three incidents, I saw signs of wokeness on campus a lot. But even then, I was quite libertarian on how universities ought to handle campus politics.
I picked up God and Man at Yale around this time because wokeness was my primary concern.
I’ve always known that conservatives love that book. I assumed it would be a defense of free inquiry and against universities having a preferred ideology.
However, to my surprise, in the book, he argued explicitly that Yale was neglecting its true mission and it should uphold its “foundational values,” as he put it. I assumed he would be promoting a libertarian outlook on campus politics, but he was arguing the opposite.
He said Yale and other elite universities should incorporate free markets and traditional perspectives directly into the curriculum because they are betraying a contract that the current alumni and the administration have with the founders of the universities. It was a pretty shocking advocacy of conservatism being imposed on the students, and I didn’t like that at all.
But later on, around 2020-ish, I became a conservative (thanks to you; more on that in the link below). But even as late as early 2023, I still held a libertarian view on academic freedom and campus politics.
(You may be interested in a comment I left on your ‘Why Young People Are Socialist’ post yesterday, in which I shared how I was once a liberal, then turned centrist, and how I finally turned conservative. You are a major influence.)
But after Oct 7, all of that changed quite fast. Watching the pro-Hamas protests on campuses that started the very next day after October 7, before even one IDF soldier set foot on Gaza, I immediately thought about God and Man at Yale. I wanted to go back and re-read God and Man at Yale.
Everything I’ve witnessed after Oct 7 — Harvard defending Claudine Gay, Harvard explicitly stating they’re an “international institution” and not an American institution, DEI, anti-White, anti-Asian discrimination, etc. has convinced me that WFB Jr. was right.
Elite universities ought to be promoting free markets and pro-American, pro-Western views. I don’t believe we should have a completely libertarian approach to academic freedom. That’s untenable in this day and age. (Again, demographics is destiny, even within organizations.)
I’ve become significantly less libertarian on a wide range of issues compared to where I was just two years ago, and not just on academic freedom/university direction.
So yes, WFB Jr. has influenced me on this idea.
David Brooks on the AI race
When it comes to confidence, some nations have it and some don’t. Some nations once had it but then lost it. Last week on his blog, “Marginal Revolution,” Alex Tabarrok, a George Mason economist, asked us to compare America’s behavior during Cold War I (against the Soviet Union) with America’s behavior during Cold War II (against China). I look at that difference and I see a stark contrast — between a nation back in the 1950s that possessed an assumed self-confidence versus a nation today that is even more powerful but has had its easy self-confidence stripped away.
There is much more at the NYT link.
The Sputnik vs. Deep Seek Moment: The Answers
In The Sputnik vs. DeepSeek Moment I pointed out that the US response to Sputnik was fierce competition. Following Sputnik, we increased funding for education, especially math, science and foreign languages, organizations like ARPA were spun up, federal funding for R&D was increased, immigration rules were loosened, foreign talent was attracted and tariff barriers continued to fall. In contrast, the response to what I called the “DeepSeek” moment has been nearly the opposite. Why did Sputnik spark investment while DeepSeek sparks retrenchment? I examine four explanations from the comments and argue that the rise of zero-sum thinking best fits the data.
Several comments fixated on DeepSeek itself, dismissing it as neither impressive nor threatening. Perhaps but DeepSeek was merely a symbol for China’s broader rise: the world’s largest exporter, manufacturer, electricity producer, and military by headcount. These critiques missed the point.
Some commenters argued that Sputnik provoked a strong response because it was seen as an existential threat, while DeepSeek—and by extension China—is not. I certainly hope China’s rise isn’t existential, and I’m encouraged that China lacks the Soviet Union’s revolutionary zeal. As I’ve said, a richer China offers benefits to the United States.
But many influential voices do view China as a very serious, even existential, threat—and unlike the USSR, China is economically formidable.
More to the point, perceived existential stakes don’t answer my question. If the threat were greater, would we suddenly liberalize immigration, expand trade, and fund universities? Unlikely. A more plausible scenario is that if the threat were greater, we would restrict harder—more tariffs, less immigration, more internal conflict.
Several commenters, including my colleague Garett Jones, pointed to demographics—especially voter demographics. The median age has risen from 30 in 1950 to 39 in recent years; today’s older, wealthier, more diverse electorate may be more risk-averse and inward-looking. There’s something to this, but it’s not sufficient. Changes in the X variables haven’t been enough to explain the change in response given constant Betas so demography doesn’t push that far but does it even push in the right direction?
Age might correlate with risk-aversion, for example, but the Trump coalition isn’t risk-averse—it’s angry and disruptive, pushing through bold and often rash policy changes.
A related explanation is that the U.S. state has far less fiscal and political slack today than it did in 1957. As I argued in Launching, we’ve become a warfare–welfare state—possibly at the expense of being an innovation state. Fiscal constraints are real, but the deeper issue is changing preferences. It’s not that we want to return to the moon and can’t—it’s that we’ve stopped wanting to go.
In my view, the best explanation for the starkly different responses to the Sputnik and DeepSeek moments is the rise of zero-sum thinking—the belief that one group’s gain must come at another’s expense. Chinoy, Nunn, Sequiera and Stantcheva show that the zero sum mindset has grown markedly in the U.S. and maps directly onto key policy attitudes.
Zero sum thinking fuels support for trade protection: if other countries gain, we must be losing. It drives opposition to immigration: if immigrants benefit, natives must suffer. And it even helps explain hostility toward universities and the desire to cut science funding. For the zero-sum thinker, there’s no such thing as a public good or even a shared national interest—only “us” versus “them.” In this framework, funding top universities isn’t investing in cancer research; it’s enriching elites at everyone else’s expense. Any claim to broader benefit is seen as a smokescreen for redistributing status, power, and money to “them.”
Zero-sum thinking doesn’t just explain the response to China; it’s also amplified by the China threat. (hence in direct opposition to some of the above theories, the people who most push the idea that the China threat is existential are the ones who are most pushing the zero sum response). Davidai and Tepper summarize:
People often exhibit zero-sum beliefs when they feel threatened, such as when they think that their (or their group’s) resources are at risk…Similarly, working under assertive leaders (versus approachable and likeable leaders) causally increases domain-specific zero-sum beliefs about success….. General zero-sum beliefs are more prevalent among people who see social interactions as a competition and among people who possess personality traits associated with high threat susceptibility, such as low agreeableness and high psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism.
Zero-sum thinking can also explain the anger we see in the United States:
At the intrapersonal level, greater endorsement of general zero-sum beliefs is associated with more negative (and less positive) affect, more greed and lower life satisfaction. In addition, people with general zero-sum beliefs tend to be overly cynical, see society as unjust, distrust their fellow citizens and societal institutions, espouse more populist attitudes, and disengage from potentially beneficial interactions.
…Together, these findings suggest a clear association between both types of zero-sum belief and well-being.
Focusing on zero-sum thinking gives us a different perspective on some of the demographic issues. In the United States, for example, the young are more zero-sum thinkers than the old and immigrants tend to be less zero-sum thinkers than natives. The likeliest reason: those who’ve experienced growth understand that everyone can get a larger slice from a growing pie while those who have experienced stagnation conclude that it’s us or them.
The looming danger is thus the zero-sum trap: the more people believe that wealth, status, and well-being are zero-sum, the more they back policies that make the world zero-sum. Restricting trade, blocking immigration, and slashing science funding don’t grow the pie. Zero-sum thinking leads to zero-sum policies, which produce zero-sum outcomes—making the zero sum worldview a self-fulfilling prophecy.