Four times the energy density and a fraction of lithium-cost ion's

As the globe abandons fossil fuels, batteries become more important. EVs, solar, wind, tidal, wave, and even local energy grids will use them. We need a battery revolution since our present batteries are big, expensive, and detrimental to the environment. A recent publication describes a battery that solves these problems. But will it be enough?

Sodium-sulfur molten salt battery. It has existed for a long time and uses molten salt as an electrolyte (read more about molten salt batteries here). These batteries are cheaper, safer, and more environmentally friendly because they use less eco-damaging materials, are non-toxic, and are non-flammable.

Previous molten salt batteries used aluminium-sulphur chemistries, which had a low energy density and required high temperatures to keep the salt liquid. This one uses a revolutionary sodium-sulphur chemistry and a room-temperature-melting salt, making it more useful, affordable, and eco-friendly. To investigate this, researchers constructed a button-cell prototype and tested it.

First, the battery was 1,017 mAh/g. This battery is four times as energy dense as high-density lithium-ion batteries (250 mAh/g).

No one knows how much this battery would cost. A more expensive molten-salt battery costs $15 per kWh. Current lithium-ion batteries cost $132/kWh. If this new molten salt battery costs the same as present cells, it will be 90% cheaper.

This room-temperature molten salt battery could be utilized in an EV. Cold-weather heaters just need a modest backup battery.

The ultimate EV battery? If used in a Tesla Model S, you could install four times the capacity with no weight gain, offering a 1,620-mile range. This huge battery pack would cost less than Tesla's. This battery would nearly perfect EVs.

Or would it?

The battery's capacity declined by 50% after 1,000 charge cycles. This means that our hypothetical Model S would suffer this decline after 1.6 million miles, but for more cheap vehicles that use smaller packs, this would be too short. This test cell wasn't supposed to last long, so this is shocking. Future versions of this cell could be modified to live longer.

This affordable and eco-friendly cell is best employed as a grid-storage battery for renewable energy. Its safety and affordable price outweigh its short lifespan. Because this battery is made of easily accessible materials, it may be utilized to boost grid-storage capacity without causing supply chain concerns or EV battery prices to skyrocket.

Researchers are designing a bigger pouch cell (like those in phones and laptops) for this purpose. The battery revolution we need could be near. Let’s just hope it isn’t too late.

The web adds millions or billions of pages per day.

How much Google traffic does this content get?

In 2017, we studied 2 million randomly-published pages to answer this question. Only 5.7% of them ranked in Google's top 10 search results within a year of being published.

94.3 percent of roughly two million pages got no Google traffic.

Two million pages is a small sample compared to the entire web. We did another study.

We analyzed over a billion pages to see how many get organic search traffic and why.

How many pages get search traffic?

90% of pages in our index get no Google traffic, and 5.2% get ten visits or less.

90% of google pages get no organic traffic

How can you join the minority that gets Google organic search traffic?

There are hundreds of SEO problems that can hurt your Google rankings. If we only consider common scenarios, there are only four.

Reason #1: No backlinks

I hate to repeat what most SEO articles say, but it's true:

Backlinks boost Google rankings.

Google's "top 3 ranking factors" include them.

Why don't we divide our studied pages by the number of referring domains?

66.31 percent of pages have no backlinks, and 26.29 percent have three or fewer.

Did you notice the trend already?

Most pages lack search traffic and backlinks.

But are these the same pages?

Let's compare monthly organic search traffic to backlinks from unique websites (referring domains):

More backlinks equals more Google organic traffic.

Referring domains and keyword rankings are correlated.

It's important to note that correlation does not imply causation, and none of these graphs prove backlinks boost Google rankings. Most SEO professionals agree that it's nearly impossible to rank on the first page without backlinks.

You'll need high-quality backlinks to rank in Google and get search traffic. 

Is organic traffic possible without links?

Here are the numbers:

Four million pages get organic search traffic without backlinks. Only one in 20 pages without backlinks has traffic, which is 5% of our sample.

Most get 300 or fewer organic visits per month.

What happens if we exclude high-Domain-Rating pages?

The numbers worsen. Less than 4% of our sample (1.4 million pages) receive organic traffic. Only 320,000 get over 300 monthly organic visits, or 0.1% of our sample.

This suggests high-authority pages without backlinks are more likely to get organic traffic than low-authority pages.

Internal links likely pass PageRank to new pages.

Two other reasons:

1. Our crawler's blocked. Most shady SEOs block backlinks from us. This prevents competitors from seeing (and reporting) PBNs.

2. They choose low-competition subjects. Low-volume queries are less competitive, requiring fewer backlinks to rank.

If the idea of getting search traffic without building backlinks excites you, learn about Keyword Difficulty and how to find keywords/topics with decent traffic potential and low competition.

Reason #2: The page has no long-term traffic potential.

Some pages with many backlinks get no Google traffic.

Why? I filtered Content Explorer for pages with no organic search traffic and divided them into four buckets by linking domains.

Almost 70k pages have backlinks from over 200 domains, but no search traffic.

By manually reviewing these (and other) pages, I noticed two general trends that explain why they get no traffic:

1. They overdid "shady link building" and got penalized by Google;

2. They're not targeting a Google-searched topic.

I won't elaborate on point one because I hope you don't engage in "shady link building"

#2 is self-explanatory:

If nobody searches for what you write, you won't get search traffic.

Consider one of our blog posts' metrics:

No organic traffic despite 337 backlinks from 132 sites.

The page is about "organic traffic research," which nobody searches for.

News articles often have this. They get many links from around the web but little Google traffic.

People can't search for things they don't know about, and most don't care about old events and don't search for them.

Note:

Some news articles rank in the "Top stories" block for relevant, high-volume search queries, generating short-term organic search traffic.

The Guardian's top "Donald Trump" story:

Ahrefs caught on quickly:

"Donald Trump" gets 5.6M monthly searches, so this page got a lot of "Top stories" traffic.

I bet traffic has dropped if you check now.

One of the quickest and most effective SEO wins is:

1. Find your website's pages with the most referring domains;

2. Do keyword research to re-optimize them for relevant topics with good search traffic potential.

Bryan Harris shared this "quick SEO win" during a course interview:

He suggested using Ahrefs' Site Explorer's "Best by links" report to find your site's most-linked pages and analyzing their search traffic. This finds pages with lots of links but little organic search traffic.

We see:

The guide has 67 backlinks but no organic traffic.

We could fix this by re-optimizing the page for "SERP"

A similar guide with 26 backlinks gets 3,400 monthly organic visits, so we should easily increase our traffic.

Don't do this with all low-traffic pages with backlinks. Choose your battles wisely; some pages shouldn't be ranked.

Reason #3: Search intent isn't met

Google returns the most relevant search results.

That's why blog posts with recommendations rank highest for "best yoga mat."

Google knows that most searchers aren't buying.

It's also why this yoga mats page doesn't rank, despite having seven times more backlinks than the top 10 pages:

The page ranks for thousands of other keywords and gets tens of thousands of monthly organic visits. Not being the "best yoga mat" isn't a big deal.

If you have pages with lots of backlinks but no organic traffic, re-optimizing them for search intent can be a quick SEO win.

It was originally a boring landing page describing our product's benefits and offering a 7-day trial.

We realized the problem after analyzing search intent.

People wanted a free tool, not a landing page.

In September 2018, we published a free tool at the same URL. Organic traffic and rankings skyrocketed.

Reason #4: Unindexed page

Google can’t rank pages that aren’t indexed.

If you think this is the case, search Google for site:[url]. You should see at least one result; otherwise, it’s not indexed.

A rogue noindex meta tag is usually to blame. This tells search engines not to index a URL.

Rogue canonicals, redirects, and robots.txt blocks prevent indexing.

Check the "Excluded" tab in Google Search Console's "Coverage" report to see excluded pages.

Google doesn't index broken pages, even with backlinks.

Surprisingly common.

In Ahrefs' Site Explorer, the Best by Links report for a popular content marketing blog shows many broken pages.

One dead page has 131 backlinks:

According to the URL, the page defined content marketing. —a keyword with a monthly search volume of 5,900 in the US.

Luckily, another page ranks for this keyword. Not a huge loss.

At least redirect the dead page's backlinks to a working page on the same topic. This may increase long-tail keyword traffic.

This post is a summary. See the original post here

Deep learning-based generative art is being researched. As usual, self-learning is better. Some models, like OpenAI's DALL-E 2, require registration and can only be used online, but others can be used locally, which is usually more enjoyable for curious users. I'll demonstrate the Stable Diffusion model's operation on a standard PC.

Let’s get started.

What It Does

Stable Diffusion uses numerous components:

• A generative model trained to produce images is called a diffusion model. The model is incrementally improving the starting data, which is only random noise. The model has an image, and while it is being trained, the reversed process is being used to add noise to the image. Being able to reverse this procedure and create images from noise is where the true magic is (more details and samples can be found in the paper).

• An internal compressed representation of a latent diffusion model, which may be altered to produce the desired images, is used (more details can be found in the paper). The capacity to fine-tune the generation process is essential because producing pictures at random is not very attractive (as we can see, for instance, in Generative Adversarial Networks).

• A neural network model called CLIP (Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training) is used to translate natural language prompts into vector representations. This model, which was trained on 400,000,000 image-text pairs, enables the transformation of a text prompt into a latent space for the diffusion model in the scenario of stable diffusion (more details in that paper).

This figure shows all data flow:

The weights file size for Stable Diffusion model v1 is 4 GB and v2 is 5 GB, making the model quite huge. The v1 model was trained on 256x256 and 512x512 LAION-5B pictures on a 4,000 GPU cluster using over 150.000 NVIDIA A100 GPU hours. The open-source pre-trained model is helpful for us. And we will.

Install

Before utilizing the Python sources for Stable Diffusion v1 on GitHub, we must install Miniconda (assuming Git and Python are already installed):

wget https://repo.anaconda.com/miniconda/Miniconda3-py39_4.12.0-Linux-x86_64.sh
chmod +x Miniconda3-py39_4.12.0-Linux-x86_64.sh
./Miniconda3-py39_4.12.0-Linux-x86_64.sh
conda update -n base -c defaults conda

Install the source and prepare the environment:

git clone https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion
cd stable-diffusion
conda env create -f environment.yaml
conda activate ldm
pip3 install transformers --upgrade

Download the pre-trained model weights next. HiggingFace has the newest checkpoint sd-v14.ckpt (a download is free but registration is required). Put the file in the project folder and have fun:

python3 scripts/txt2img.py --prompt "hello world" --plms --ckpt sd-v1-4.ckpt --skip_grid --n_samples 1

Almost. The installation is complete for happy users of current GPUs with 12 GB or more VRAM. RuntimeError: CUDA out of memory will occur otherwise. Two solutions exist.

Running the optimized version

Try optimizing first. After cloning the repository and enabling the environment (as previously), we can run the command:

python3 optimizedSD/optimized_txt2img.py --prompt "hello world" --ckpt sd-v1-4.ckpt --skip_grid --n_samples 1

Stable Diffusion worked on my visual card with 8 GB RAM (alas, I did not behave well enough to get NVIDIA A100 for Christmas, so 8 GB GPU is the maximum I have;).

Running Stable Diffusion without GPU

If the GPU does not have enough RAM or is not CUDA-compatible, running the code on a CPU will be 20x slower but better than nothing. This unauthorized CPU-only branch from GitHub is easiest to obtain. We may easily edit the source code to use the latest version. It's strange that a pull request for that was made six months ago and still hasn't been approved, as the changes are simple. Readers can finish in 5 minutes:

• Replace if attr.device!= torch.device(cuda) with if attr.device!= torch.device(cuda) and torch.cuda.is available at line 20 of ldm/models/diffusion/ddim.py ().

• Replace if attr.device!= torch.device(cuda) with if attr.device!= torch.device(cuda) and torch.cuda.is available in line 20 of ldm/models/diffusion/plms.py ().

• Replace device=cuda in lines 38, 55, 83, and 142 of ldm/modules/encoders/modules.py with device=cuda if torch.cuda.is available(), otherwise cpu.

• Replace model.cuda() in scripts/txt2img.py line 28 and scripts/img2img.py line 43 with if torch.cuda.is available(): model.cuda ().

Run the script again.

Testing

Test the model. Text-to-image is the first choice. Test the command line example again:

python3 scripts/txt2img.py --prompt "hello world" --plms --ckpt sd-v1-4.ckpt --skip_grid --n_samples 1

The slow generation takes 10 seconds on a GPU and 10 minutes on a CPU. Final image:

Hello world is dull and abstract. Try a brush-wielding hamster. Why? Because we can, and it's not as insane as Napoleon's cat. Another image:

Generating an image from a text prompt and another image is interesting. I made this picture in two minutes using the image editor (sorry, drawing wasn't my strong suit):

I can create an image from this drawing:

python3 scripts/img2img.py --prompt "A bird is sitting on a tree branch" --ckpt sd-v1-4.ckpt --init-img bird.png --strength 0.8

It was far better than my initial drawing:

I hope readers understand and experiment.

Stable Diffusion UI

Developers love the command line, but regular users may struggle. Stable Diffusion UI projects simplify image generation and installation. Simple usage:

• Unpack the ZIP after downloading it from https://github.com/cmdr2/stable-diffusion-ui/releases. Linux and Windows are compatible with Stable Diffusion UI (sorry for Mac users, but those machines are not well-suitable for heavy machine learning tasks anyway;).

• Start the script.

Done. The web browser UI makes configuring various Stable Diffusion features (upscaling, filtering, etc.) easy:

V2.1 of Stable Diffusion

I noticed the notification about releasing version 2.1 while writing this essay, and it was intriguing to test it. First, compare version 2 to version 1:

• alternative text encoding. The Contrastive LanguageImage Pre-training (CLIP) deep learning model, which was trained on a significant number of text-image pairs, is used in Stable Diffusion 1. The open-source CLIP implementation used in Stable Diffusion 2 is called OpenCLIP. It is difficult to determine whether there have been any technical advancements or if legal concerns were the main focus. However, because the training datasets for the two text encoders were different, the output results from V1 and V2 will differ for the identical text prompts.

• a new depth model that may be used to the output of image-to-image generation.

• a revolutionary upscaling technique that can quadruple the resolution of an image.

• Generally higher resolution Stable Diffusion 2 has the ability to produce both 512x512 and 768x768 pictures.

The Hugging Face website offers a free online demo of Stable Diffusion 2.1 for code testing. The process is the same as for version 1.4. Download a fresh version and activate the environment:

conda deactivate  
conda env remove -n ldm  # Use this if version 1 was previously installed
git clone https://github.com/Stability-AI/stablediffusion
cd stablediffusion
conda env create -f environment.yaml
conda activate ldm

Hugging Face offers a new weights ckpt file.

The Out of memory error prevented me from running this version on my 8 GB GPU. Version 2.1 fails on CPUs with the slow conv2d cpu not implemented for Half error (according to this GitHub issue, the CPU support for this algorithm and data type will not be added). The model can be modified from half to full precision (float16 instead of float32), however it doesn't make sense since v1 runs up to 10 minutes on the CPU and v2.1 should be much slower. The online demo results are visible. The same hamster painting with a brush prompt yielded this result:

It looks different from v1, but it functions and has a higher resolution.

The superresolution.py script can run the 4x Stable Diffusion upscaler locally (the x4-upscaler-ema.ckpt weights file should be in the same folder):

python3 scripts/gradio/superresolution.py configs/stable-diffusion/x4-upscaling.yaml x4-upscaler-ema.ckpt

This code allows the web browser UI to select the image to upscale:

The copy-paste strategy may explain why the upscaler needs a text prompt (and the Hugging Face code snippet does not have any text input as well). I got a GPU out of memory error again, although CUDA can be disabled like v1. However, processing an image for more than two hours is unlikely:

Stable Diffusion Limitations

When we use the model, it's fun to see what it can and can't do. Generative models produce abstract visuals but not photorealistic ones. This fundamentally limits The generative neural network was trained on text and image pairs, but humans have a lot of background knowledge about the world. The neural network model knows nothing. If someone asks me to draw a Chinese text, I can draw something that looks like Chinese but is actually gibberish because I never learnt it. Generative AI does too! Humans can learn new languages, but the Stable Diffusion AI model includes only language and image decoder brain components. For instance, the Stable Diffusion model will pull NO WAR banner-bearers like this:

V1:

V2.1:

The shot shows text, although the model never learned to read or write. The model's string tokenizer automatically converts letters to lowercase before generating the image, so typing NO WAR banner or no war banner is the same.

I can also ask the model to draw a gorgeous woman:

V1:

V2.1:

The first image is gorgeous but physically incorrect. A second one is better, although it has an Uncanny valley feel. BTW, v2 has a lifehack to add a negative prompt and define what we don't want on the image. Readers might try adding horrible anatomy to the gorgeous woman request.

If we ask for a cartoon attractive woman, the results are nice, but accuracy doesn't matter:

V1:

V2.1:

Another example: I ordered a model to sketch a mouse, which looks beautiful but has too many legs, ears, and fingers:

V1:

V2.1: improved but not perfect.

V1 produces a fun cartoon flying mouse if I want something more abstract:

I tried multiple times with V2.1 but only received this:

The image is OK, but the first version is closer to the request.

Stable Diffusion struggles to draw letters, fingers, etc. However, abstract images yield interesting outcomes. A rural landscape with a modern metropolis in the background turned out well:

V1:

V2.1:

Generative models help make paintings too (at least, abstract ones). I searched Google Image Search for modern art painting to see works by real artists, and this was the first image:

I typed "abstract oil painting of people dancing" and got this:

V1:

V2.1:

It's a different style, but I don't think the AI-generated graphics are worse than the human-drawn ones.

The AI model cannot think like humans. It thinks nothing. A stable diffusion model is a billion-parameter matrix trained on millions of text-image pairs. I input "robot is creating a picture with a pen" to create an image for this post. Humans understand requests immediately. I tried Stable Diffusion multiple times and got this:

This great artwork has a pen, robot, and sketch, however it was not asked. Maybe it was because the tokenizer deleted is and a words from a statement, but I tried other requests such robot painting picture with pen without success. It's harder to prompt a model than a person.

I hope Stable Diffusion's general effects are evident. Despite its limitations, it can produce beautiful photographs in some settings. Readers who want to use Stable Diffusion results should be warned. Source code examination demonstrates that Stable Diffusion images feature a concealed watermark (text StableDiffusionV1 and SDV2) encoded using the invisible-watermark Python package. It's not a secret, because the official Stable Diffusion repository's test watermark.py file contains a decoding snippet. The put watermark line in the txt2img.py source code can be removed if desired. I didn't discover this watermark on photographs made by the online Hugging Face demo. Maybe I did something incorrectly (but maybe they are just not using the txt2img script on their backend at all).

Conclusion

The Stable Diffusion model was fascinating. As I mentioned before, trying something yourself is always better than taking someone else's word, so I encourage readers to do the same (including this article as well;).

Is Generative AI a game-changer? My humble experience tells me:

• I think that place has a lot of potential. For designers and artists, generative AI can be a truly useful and innovative tool. Unfortunately, it can also pose a threat to some of them since if users can enter a text field to obtain a picture or a website logo in a matter of clicks, why would they pay more to a different party? Is it possible right now? unquestionably not yet. Images still have a very poor quality and are erroneous in minute details. And after viewing the image of the stunning woman above, models and fashion photographers may also unwind because it is highly unlikely that AI will replace them in the upcoming years.

• Today, generative AI is still in its infancy. Even 768x768 images are considered to be of a high resolution when using neural networks, which are computationally highly expensive. There isn't an AI model that can generate high-resolution photographs natively without upscaling or other methods, at least not as of the time this article was written, but it will happen eventually.

• It is still a challenge to accurately represent knowledge in neural networks (information like how many legs a cat has or the year Napoleon was born). Consequently, AI models struggle to create photorealistic photos, at least where little details are important (on the other side, when I searched Google for modern art paintings, the results are often even worse;).

• When compared to the carefully chosen images from official web pages or YouTube reviews, the average output quality of a Stable Diffusion generation process is actually less attractive because to its high degree of randomness. When using the same technique on their own, consumers will theoretically only view those images as 1% of the results.

Anyway, it's exciting to witness this area's advancement, especially because the project is open source. Google's Imagen and DALL-E 2 can also produce remarkable findings. It will be interesting to see how they progress.

New Stiglitz just dropped.

Here's the inflation story everyone believes (warning: it's false): America gave the poor too much money during the recession, and now the economy is awash with free money, which made them so rich they're refusing to work, meaning the economy isn't making anything. Prices are soaring due to increased cash and missing labor.

Lawrence Summers says there's only one answer. We must impoverish the poor: raise interest rates, cause a recession, and eliminate millions of jobs, until the poor are stripped of their underserved fortunes and return to work.

https://pluralistic.net/2021/11/20/quiet-part-out-loud/#profiteering

This is nonsense. Countries around the world suffered inflation during and after lockdowns, whether they gave out humanitarian money to keep people from starvation. America has slightly greater inflation than other OECD countries, but it's not due to big relief packages.

The Causes of and Responses to Today's Inflation, a Roosevelt Institute report by Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and macroeconomist Regmi Ira, debunks this bogus inflation story and offers a more credible explanation for inflation.

https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/RI CausesofandResponsestoTodaysInflation Report 202212.pdf

Sharp interest rate hikes exacerbate the slump and increase inflation, the authors argue. They compare monetary policy inflation cures to medieval bloodletting, where doctors repeated the same treatment until the patient recovered (for which they received credit) or died (which was more likely).

Let's discuss bloodletting. Inflation hawks warn of the wage price spiral, when inflation rises and powerful workers bargain for higher pay, driving up expenses, prices, and wages. This is the fairy-tale narrative of the 1970s, and it's true except that OPEC's embargo drove up oil prices, which produced inflation. Oh well.

Let's be generous to seventies-haunted inflation hawks and say we're worried about a wage-price spiral. Fantastic! No. Real wages are 2.3% lower than they were in Oct 2021 after peaking in June at 4.8%.

Why did America's powerful workers take a paycut rather than demand inflation-based pay? Weak unions, globalization, economic developments.

Workers don't expect inflation to rise, so they're not requesting inflationary hikes. Inflationary expectations have remained moderate, consistent with our data interpretation.

https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/sce#/

Neither are workers. Working people see surplus savings as wealth and spend it gradually over their lives, despite rising demand. People may have saved money by staying in during the lockdown, but they don't eat out every night to make up for it. Instead, they keep those savings as precautionary balances. This is why the economy is lagging.

People don't buy non-traded goods with pandemic savings (basically, imports). Imports don't multiply like domestic purchases. If you buy a loaf of bread from the corner baker for $1 and they spend it at the tavern across the street, that dollar generates $3 in economic activity. Spending a dollar on foreign goods leaves the country and any multiplier effect happens there, not in the US.

Only marginally higher wages. The ECI is up 1.6% from 2019. Almost all gains went to the 25% lowest-paid Americans. Contrary to the inflation worry about too much savings, these workers don't make enough to save, even post-pandemic.

Recreation and transit spending are at or below pre-pandemic levels. Higher food and hotel prices (which doesn’t mean we’re buying more food than we were in 2019, just that it costs more).

What causes inflation if not greedy workers, free money, and high demand? The most expensive domestic goods produce the biggest revenues for their manufacturers. They charge you more without paying their workers or suppliers more.

The largest price-gougers are funneling their earnings to rich people who store it offshore through stock buybacks and dividends. A $1 billion stock buyback doesn't buy $1 billion in bread.

Five factors influence US inflation today:

I. Price rises for energy and food

II. shifts in consumer tastes

III. supply interruptions (mainly autos);

IV. increased rents (due to telecommuting);

V. monopoly (AKA price-gouging).

None can be remedied by raising interest rates or laying off workers.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine, omicron, and China's Zero Covid policy all disrupted the flow of food, energy, and production inputs. The price went higher because we made less.

After Russia invaded Ukraine, oil prices spiked, and sanctions made it worse. But that was February. By October, oil prices had returned to pre-pandemic, 2015 levels attributable to global economic adjustments, including a shift to renewables. Every new renewable installation reduces oil consumption and affects oil prices.

High food prices have a simple solution. The US and EU have bribed farmers not to produce for 50 years. If the war continues, this program may end, and food prices may decline.

Demand changes. We want different things than in 2019, not more. During the lockdown, people substituted goods. Half of the US toilet-paper supply in 2019 was on commercial-sized rolls. This is created from different mills and stock than our toilet paper.

Lockdown pushed toilet paper demand to residential rolls, causing shortages (the TP hoarding story was just another pandemic urban legend). Because supermarket stores don't have accounts with commercial paper distributors, ordering from languishing stores was difficult. Kleenex and paper towel substitutions caused greater shortages.

All that drove increased costs in numerous product categories, and there were more cases. These increases are transient, caused by supply chain inefficiencies that are resolving.

Demand for frontline staff saw a one-time repricing of pay, which is being recouped as we speak.

Illnesses. Brittle, hollowed-out global supply chains aggravated this. The constant pursuit of cheap labor and minimal regulation by monopolies that dominate most sectors means things are manufactured in far-flung locations. Financialization means any surplus capital assets were sold off years ago, leaving firms with little production slack. After the epidemic, several of these systems took years to restart.

Automobiles are to blame. Financialization and monopolization consolidated microchip and auto production in Taiwan and China. When the lockdowns came, these worldwide corporations cancelled their chip orders, and when they placed fresh orders, they were at the back of the line.

That drove up car prices, which is why the US has slightly higher inflation than other wealthy countries: the economy is car-centric. Automobile prices account for 9% of the CPI. France: 3.6%

Rent shocks and telecommuting. After the epidemic, many professionals moved to exurbs, small towns, and the countryside to work from home. As commercial properties were vacated, it was impractical to adapt them for residential use due to planning restrictions. Addressing these restrictions will cut rent prices more than raising inflation rates, which halts housing construction.

Statistical mirages cause some rent inflation. The CPI estimates what homeowners would pay to rent their properties. When rents rise in your neighborhood, the CPI believes you're spending more on rent even if you have a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.

Market dominance. Almost every area of the US economy is dominated by monopolies, whose CEOs disclose on investor calls that they use inflation scares to jack up prices and make record profits.

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/02/its-the-economy-stupid/#overinflated

Long-term profit margins are rising. Markups averaged 26% from 1960-1980. 2021: 72%. Market concentration explains 81% of markup increases (e.g. monopolization). Profit margins reach a 70-year high in 2022. These elements interact. Monopolies thin out their sectors, making them brittle and sensitive to shocks.

If we're worried about a shrinking workforce, there are more humanitarian and sensible solutions than causing a recession and mass unemployment. Instead, we may boost US production capacity by easing workers' entry into the workforce.

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/01/factories-to-condos-pipeline/#stuff-not-money

US female workforce participation ranks towards the bottom of developed countries. Many women can't afford to work due to America's lack of daycare, low earnings, and bad working conditions in female-dominated fields. If America doesn't have enough workers, childcare subsidies and minimum wages can help.

By contrast, driving the country into recession with interest-rate hikes will reduce employment, and the last recruited (women, minorities) are the first fired and the last to be rehired. Forcing America into recession won't enhance its capacity to create what its people want; it will degrade it permanently.

Nothing the Fed does can stop price hikes from international markets, lack of supply chain investment, COVID-19 disruptions, climate change, the Ukraine war, or market power. They can worsen it. When supply problems generate inflation, raising interest rates decreases investments that can remedy shortages.

Increasing interest rates won't cut rents since landlords pass on the expenses and high rates restrict investment in new dwellings where tenants could escape the costs.

Fixing the supply fixes supply-side inflation. Increase renewables investment (as the Inflation Reduction Act does). Monopolies can be busted (as the IRA does). Reshore key goods (as the CHIPS Act does). Better pay and child care attract employees.

Windfall taxes can claw back price-gouging corporations' monopoly earnings.

https://pluralistic.net/2022/03/15/sanctions-financing/#soak-the-rich

In 2008, we ruled out fiscal solutions (bailouts for debtors) and turned to monetary policy (bank bailouts). This preserved the economy but increased inequality and eroded public trust.

Monetary policy won't help. Even monetary policy enthusiasts recognize an 18-month lag between action and result. That suggests monetary tightening is unnecessary. Like the medieval bloodletter, central bankers whose interest rate hikes don't work swiftly may do more of the same, bringing the economy to its knees.

Interest rates must rise. Zero-percent interest fueled foolish speculation and financialization. Increasing rates will stop this. Increasing interest rates will destroy the economy and dampen inflation.

Then what? All recent evidence indicate to inflation decreasing on its own, as the authors argue. Supply side difficulties are finally being overcome, evidence shows. Energy and food prices are showing considerable mean reversion, which is disinflationary.

The authors don't recommend doing nothing. Best case scenario, they argue, is that the Fed won't keep raising interest rates until morale improves.

Let's see this once-dominant IT corporation crumble.

What's the capital of Kazakhstan? If you don't know the answer, you can probably find it by Googling. Google Search returned results for Nur-Sultan in 0.66 seconds.

Google is the best search engine I've ever used. Did you know another search engine ruled the Internet? I'm sure you guessed Yahoo!

Google's friendly UI and wide selection of services make it my top choice. Let's explore Yahoo's decline.

Yahoo!

YAHOO stands for Yet Another Hierarchically Organized Oracle. Jerry Yang and David Filo established Yahoo.

Yahoo is primarily a search engine and email provider. It offers News and an advertising platform. It was a popular website in 1995 that let people search the Internet directly. Yahoo began offering free email in 1997 by acquiring RocketMail.

According to a study, Yahoo used Google Search Engine technology until 2000 and then developed its own in 2004.

Yahoo! rejected buying Google for $1 billion

Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google's founders, approached Yahoo in 1998 to sell Google for $1 billion so they could focus on their studies. Yahoo denied the offer, thinking it was overvalued at the time.

Yahoo realized its error and offered Google $3 billion in 2002, but Google demanded $5 billion since it was more valuable. Yahoo thought $5 billion was overpriced for the existing market.

In 2022, Google is worth $1.56 Trillion.

What happened to Yahoo!

Yahoo refused to buy Google, and Google's valuation rose, making a purchase unfeasible.

Yahoo started losing users when Google launched Gmail. Google's UI was far cleaner than Yahoo's.

Yahoo offered $1 billion to buy Facebook in July 2006, but Zuckerberg and the board sought $1.1 billion. Yahoo rejected, and Facebook's valuation rose, making it difficult to buy.

Yahoo was losing users daily while Google and Facebook gained many. Google and Facebook's popularity soared. Yahoo lost value daily.

Microsoft offered $45 billion to buy Yahoo in February 2008, but Yahoo declined. Microsoft increased its bid to $47 billion after Yahoo said it was too low, but Yahoo rejected it. Then Microsoft rejected Yahoo’s 10% bid increase in May 2008.

In 2015, Verizon bought Yahoo for $4.5 billion, and Apollo Global Management bought 90% of Yahoo's shares for $5 billion in May 2021. Verizon kept 10%.

Yahoo's opportunity to acquire Google and Facebook could have been a turning moment. It declined Microsoft's $45 billion deal in 2008 and was sold to Verizon for $4.5 billion in 2015. Poor decisions and lack of vision caused its downfall. Yahoo's aim wasn't obvious and it didn't stick to a single domain.

Hence, a corporation needs a clear vision and a leader who can see its future.

Liked this article? Join my tech and programming newsletter here.