Innovation, prosperity and markets

My latest post and recent Tweets – on why and how the West is rapidly losing the right to talk about propaganda and moral values in any meaningful way – make me realize that my readers think I may be going nuts. In fact, that is a euphemism: you must think I am way beyond nuts. You are right, and not. I am not. Why not?

Because I believe in very obvious and down-to-earth things. What things? Innovation, prosperity and markets. That’s it. And that is all what current world news is about so I must be right. That is also what makes me feel optimistic about the future (OK – please do put lots of salt on your table now to make sure that everything that I write below can be taken with the required ‘pinch of salt’):

1. The war with Russia is bad. And sad. Exceptionally bad. And exceptionally sad. Yes. American and British experts had warned us: it would happen. We were sleeping in continental Europe. You were right. Still, I will not agree with the next Doomsday prediction – and that is that this war cannot be ended any time soon.

Sure, I suffer from exaggerated optimism: I am optimistic, always (otherwise I would have been dead already). I do think smart European politicians (not the warmongers – who dominate now, unfortunately – led by a von der Leyen (I did like her initially, if only because I thought she would put German genius and leadership back on the map, which she did not manage to do) or a Josep Borrell Fontennes – who, sadly, did not learn nothing from Spanish separatist movements and, as a result, has alienated himself from a very natural constituency in Southern Europe: smart locals who think in terms of multi-layered identities rather than in grand European ideas) will turn it around and find ways to prepare for peace not based on antagonism but true people-to-people exchanges. [I should create my own political party here – together with some second- or third-generation immigrants – to prove myself wrong on this point: foreign policy does mobilize voters, and I will be proud of the few hundred votes I will probably get. It is easy to create a political party in Belgium, and so I will fully enjoy that little adventure of mine.]

2. The war with Russia will do what 20 or 30 years of green subsidies have failed to do, and that is to push economic actors – both households as well as industry – to invest in energy-poor and environment-friendly consumption and production wholeheartedly. All economists knew that is how the long-term externalities that our energy addiction brings with it (climate change) should be addressed. They knew it since the 1970s. It takes a market shock. Huge price rises – like those we had in the 1970s (but which were not seized upon by politicians to come up with a truly new economic-political-societal model, either).

Subsidies only create bureaucracies and vested interest groups. The EU Commission criticizes the Belgian budget not because our debt-GDP ratio has gone up to 100+ percent again, but because the budget for subsidies is 6 times (yes – six times) that what it is for true investment expenditure. [Do not get me started on that: I will demolish whatever arguments you have. Politics may not be my number one competency or field of expertise, but economics is.]

We have too many energy subsidies now, and they unfortunately keep pushing the wrong buttons: we must go nuclear again. Sorry for hurting your feelings, but scarcity and market shocks is what triggers behavioral change. Do not count on good intentions. Did good intentions ever change your own life? Shock (and awe?) is the only thing that works (I did learn something from my experience with the likes of General Petraeus) so, yes, shock and awe is there now. And, yes, we finally, see behavioral change happening now.

3. The new Cold War with China shows what superpower competition is all about now: it is about brains and technological assets. Taiwan is the technological equivalent of what the Suez canal is/was in geopolitics. Current tension in Asia is not about keeping sea lanes, shipping routes or economies open to all of the world. The world’s future digital and, therefore, economic revolution depends on Taiwan’s microchips and the related nanometer industries. That is what it is all about, and why Taiwan must effectively remain open to all who want to advance the world economy. China’s military exercises may look worrying but – based on my 20+ years of experience in Asia – I can confidently state that China is keeping its cool. Very much so, in fact. That is good: some experts in the US and Europe seem to lose it completely. [I am pretty damn serious here: I’ve been in a few situations where I literally had to order people with guns to hold their guns. This feels – eerily – very much the same, except that no guns are out now. But the safety on the guns did get switched off, which scares me.]


I have always been fascinated and enthusiastic about IMEC. Because it is a fine Flemish/Belgian company, of course ! But – more than being fiercely proud as a Belgian – I do believe its business model is truly unique and leading the way for the most urgent need of the day, which I mentioned above: applied technology is effectively what is going to avoid long-term disaster and allow us to live happily.

When I was born back in 1969 (a year which you may associate both with men landing on the moon as well with Nixon’s escalation of the Vietnam war – your choice), the world’s population was (a bit less than) half of what it is now: 3.6 billion, as opposed to an estimated 8 billion today. We will likely be close to the 10 billion mark in 2050, after which the UN does project some kind of leveling because most countries will have made the usual demographic transition that prosperity inevitably brings with it: instead of producing children as a productive asset to protect us against insecurity and old age, we will just want to reproduce and invest in their future – rather than our own. You will wonder: this has nothing to do with my story about microchips and IMEC, does it?

It does. IMEC’s model is about access to technology to all. IMEC works with more than 5,000 expert scientists from over 95 countries – including countries that China cannot or does not want to work it, and countries that the US (and now the EU) cannot or does not want to work with. IMEC also connects an ecosystem of more than 600 world-leading industry partners and a global academic network which US-based companies or, conversely, Chinese companies cannot knit together. Why? Because Flanders is very small and innocent, because Belgium is very complicated and very innocent too (we are just a weird and funny multicultural chocolate-and-beer country around Brussels, right?) and – most importantly – because people like Luc Van den Hove and Luc Sels (I could mention others but I saw him speak at the occasion of the graduation of both my daughter and my son, and I was hugely impressed) are – without any doubt to me – among the smartest people in the world.

I am an old man. Perhaps not in years: 50+ is nothing (right?) and I am quite fast on the bike and – yes – very quick in a personal fight if you’d look for one. 🙂 But, yes, old – quite old: I survived an aggressive cancer last year and – I will be honest – it was my very last fight. [OK – I had to go to Ukraine to personally see what was happening there but that was the last, even if I cannot completely rule out that there might be some other thing I do not want to see on TV and, hence, go witness by joining personally. I am no couch potato and will not die in bed.]

I am happy and tired now and I want all people from my generation on this planet to be as happy and tired as I am. I am pleased to see we are getting there. At several occasions – most notably on my management blog (yes – I write provocatively on almost anything, including quantum physics and math) – I lashed out against postmodernism, nihilism and Doomsday thinking in general. Times are tough but great:

1. We are witnessing a new Schumpeterian restructuring of the world economy. Painful, but it will do what it must do: homo sapiens is not an obsolete algorithm. I totally disagree with popular thinkers such as Yuval Noah Harari here. The contrary is true: homo sapiens is rocking and rolling. If anything, homo sapiens moved away from catering to immediate needs (a homo economicus) to a world of adventure, play and culture (homo ludens). Man has never been in more control of destiny as now

2. Europe is no longer ‘the Evening Land’ – even if that is the first thing I would say to Russian or Chinese friends when meeting them. My opening line to Chinese tourists (my GF is Chinese and she brings quite a few) is usually something like this: “This is a place that has nothing to offer but wisdom from past mistakes. I am sure you will see it as such and distinguish us from the ‘rest of the West’. The buildings and museums here are very wonderful. I am sure you will enjoy them.”

As far as I can see, they do. They enjoy them just as much as other casual visitors from Asia (the continent where I spent most of my life and, yes, I admit it: I am totally biased because of that) who come back to see me here in Brussels. If someone would want to murder or poison me (extremely unlikely but I do watch out after a rather adventurous life), it would be the Russian state apparatus (they should not after all that I wrote above: Russia is not our enemy but an attack on Europe cannot be tolerated) or – strangely – some idiot in some CIA unit. He will not kill or poison but just make my life as a professional one-man company as difficult as he can. I am not worried about that. We’re finally talking, right? 🙂

Innovation, prosperity and how markets – political or economic – actually function. That is always a good topic to talk about. The Chinese state apparatus offers much better food for thought for that lately than any other state apparatus currently does. A friend asked me lately: yo would not want to live in China, do you? I was completely honest in my reply: I am happiest here in Brussels – but I would not mind to retire in China. I know Chinese propagandists would probably look at that as a very poor answer, but I actually mean it: what is wrong with a strong state providing for, and deeply respecting, elderly people like me? I am ready to forgive any other state sins China has committed and, without the slightest trace of doubt, will keep committing.

China is polluted, busy, hectic, random, dangerous and whatever other bad epithet you would want to add. I agree. I’d rather retire there than in Washington DC. Full stop. [I repeat: I’ll retire in Brussels, of course. There is no place like home.]

Yes. However. To Europe: please start talking to companies like Huawei on 5G and – more generally – how the EU and China can work together. The new Digital Markets Act is going to be challenged anyway by the Googles and Microsofts from the US. Why not talk somewhat more seriously to companies such as IMEC (here at home) or – more risky, perhaps, but surely worthwhile – Huawei? Huawei is not giving up on Europe. Why would they? The Chinese market is sufficiently large for them, but then it is not about that, is it? I honestly believe Huawei’s senior management team has a vision, and that its vision is as mature as that of a Luc Van den Hove or a Luc Sels.

The thing that has kept me alive through all of my troubles in my adventurous life is this: I recognize people who are smarter than me. I can count those people on the digits of my hand. Still: they are smarter than me. Full stop.

Post scriptum: I got a message from LinkedIn just now (only five hours after me stating my protest on perceived censorship) stating that my rather forceful comment on an post pleading for a ban on Russian tourism is back online. The link to the post did not work so I am not quite sure, but it is sufficient to restore my confidence in LinkedIn as one of the very few open social media in this rather bizarre world of social media and public discourse. I did learn my lesson, though: I will try to refrain from posting messages that go against the grain of sentiment. It is – quite simply – not very productive.

Post scriptum 2: One hour later, I got a message that LinkedIn re-reviewed their decision. I copy below. What the hell?

Reference # 220815-003288 Status: ClosedView your case(s) on our Help Center You may reply to this case for up to 14 days

Response (08/15/2022 13:16 CST)

“After taking a second look, we confirmed your content goes against our Professional Community Policies, We understand that this might not be the response you wanted, but we work to apply our policies in a fair and consistent way for all of our members. Thanks again for being part of the LinkedIn community.”

The new Cold War with Russia and China (and censorship on social media)

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Russia and China engage in propaganda. The West, of course, does not. We only write about truth and peace and democracy. What nonsense! I reacted strongly – on my LinkedIn account – against what I perceive to be a new Cold War with Russia and China and – more to the point – how wrong it is to demonize not only leaders or systems but also people. Indeed, the Russian or Chinese people are not inherently bad and sanctions should, therefore, not be applied to people-to-people contacts, such as a ban on Russian tourism in Europe – which is currently being advocated by some European politicians (I am thinking of two new hawks here – both young, pretty and very woke, on the surface, at least).

My post was removed. See the screenshot below. It will not make me change my mind. On the contrary: I am someone who would rather defend or even exaggerate an unpopular view rather than adapt it to please the other side. It makes me feel that we live in dangerous times, and that free speech is under attack. Not only in the East but also in the West. This confirms what I wrote in previous posts. We are straight back where we were 50 years ago – right back to the old world order: a terribly Cold War. It is a Cold War with China, and a hot war with Russia too! I tell my children not to worry about it and just have fun but, deep inside, I feel very sad. It feels like this generation has failed on all fronts: climate change, peace, poverty, exclusion, etcetera. I hope the next generation will do better but, judging from what young and popular European politicians such as Kaja Kallas and Sanna Marin are pleading for, I have little hope.

They are supported very vocally by a majority of smart young business-minded people from former Eastern Europe as well as by very vocal Ukrainian migrants here. While I understand what they are saying, I would suggest they go back to their own country and make a difference there. We do not need more warmongering here in Europe.

As for social media censorship, some kind of regulation is obviously needed. We do not want senseless material to go viral. However, I feel the only way to keep it transparent is to do it like Twitter is doing it: they do not resort to trolling or patrolling threads and then randomly deleting tweets but just stick to clearly identify and labeling the source for what it is. For example: tweets by government officials (be they US, Chinese or Russian or whatever nationality) are clearly marked as such. Hence, exaggerated or weird claims are not being censored (removed) but their source is appropriately flagged. I like that. Facebook says it has policies in place that should filter things out but, whatever these policies are, they are not clear to me and I will, therefore, not use FB anymore for political comments.

I do not believe it is useful to try to actively filter out messages. Tracing and marking the source of a message should do. As far as I can see from my analysis while participating in Twitter discussion threads, Twitter is quite good at that. The interesting thing here is that both Russia and China have an official ban on Twitter but that the ban does not apply to government officials and that, in China and Russia itself, private users do circumvent the ban without too much trouble.

Elon Musk wrote that he was/is interested in acquiring Twitter because he wants to turn it into some kind of ‘absolutist free speech’ medium. Many people may think he cannot possibly be serious. Based on my (admittedly limited) experience with Twitter, I feel he has got a point. I like Twitter. As mentioned above, I feel that the regulation they have put in place is effective: clearly marking the nature of the source of a social media message is probably sufficient to make sure its readers read it with the “pinch of salt” that is required. I think the regulation of social media should be based on the Twitter model: one can write what he or she wants but you should identify yourself and what you stand for. The rest is for the reader to judge. We should not underestimate his or her intelligence and we should – surely – not judge in his or her stead.

You may not agree with my views above. That is fine. All that I am asking is that you question whatever would irk you and make you feel that I am totally wrong. If you come out of that exercise with a confirmation of your own views – even if they would be and remain diametrically opposed to mine – then that is fine. That is what rational discussion and finding a good middle ground through dialectical exchange is all about.

Post scriptum: You may think I should request a second look at the case from the LinkedIn editors. I did. I used their appeal procedure, and wrote this as justification for asking a review for the removal of my comments:

“I know my comment is a minority view but I wrote it because I feel it is true and because I feel I must go against the grain of sentiment here. I am one of few Europeans who have seen the horrors of war up close and who – unlike some of the people who may find it offensive – did not flee Ukraine but went to fight there. I came back. Alive and sane. Yesterday I was told some of my friends are dead or lost limbs. I think you should look at the Twitter model for weeding out comments. They label content as offensive or clearly mark the nature of the source. I wrote about that on my political blog just now: I am fine with clear feedback: perhaps LinkedIn is not the fora for such discussions. However, I do not see why there should be no equal treatment of majority and minority views.”

I am curious to see if they will reply and, if so, what they will do or write. As for now, I will refrain from further posts or comments on political issues on that channel. It is not good for my business anyway, so I should not bother and do what is right for me. 🙂