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.

Few sentences can have global significance.

Ethan Zuckerman invented the pop-up commercial in 1997.

He was working for Tripod.com, an online service that let people make little web pages for free. Tripod offered advertising to make money. Advertisers didn't enjoy seeing their advertising next to filthy content, like a user's anal sex website.

Zuckerman's boss wanted a solution. Wasn't there a way to move the ads away from user-generated content?

When you visited a Tripod page, a pop-up ad page appeared. So, the ad isn't officially tied to any user page. It'd float onscreen.

Here’s the thing, though: Zuckerman’s bit of Javascript, that created the popup ad? It was incredibly short — a single line of code:

window.open('http://tripod.com/navbar.html'
"width=200, height=400, toolbar=no, scrollbars=no, resizable=no, target=_top");

Javascript tells the browser to open a 200-by-400-pixel window on top of any other open web pages, without a scrollbar or toolbar.

Simple yet harmful! Soon, commercial websites mimicked Zuckerman's concept, infesting the Internet with pop-up advertising. In the early 2000s, a coder for a download site told me that most of their revenue came from porn pop-up ads.

Pop-up advertising are everywhere. You despise them. Hopefully, your browser blocks them.

Zuckerman wrote a single line of code that made the world worse.

I read Zuckerman's story in How 26 Lines of Code Changed the World. Torie Bosch compiled a humorous anthology of short writings about code that tipped the world.

Most of these samples are quite short. Pop-cultural preconceptions about coding say that important code is vast and expansive. Hollywood depicts programmers as blurs spouting out Niagaras of code. Google's success was formerly attributed to its 2 billion lines of code.

It's usually not true. Google's original breakthrough, the piece of code that propelled Google above its search-engine counterparts, was its PageRank algorithm, which determined a web page's value based on how many other pages connected to it and the quality of those connecting pages. People have written their own Python versions; it's only a few dozen lines.

Google's operations, like any large tech company's, comprise thousands of procedures. So their code base grows. The most impactful code can be brief.

The examples are fascinating and wide-ranging, so read the whole book (or give it to nerds as a present). Charlton McIlwain wrote a chapter on the police beat algorithm developed in the late 1960s to anticipate crime hotspots so law enforcement could dispatch more officers there. It created a racial feedback loop. Since poor Black neighborhoods were already overpoliced compared to white ones, the algorithm directed more policing there, resulting in more arrests, which convinced it to send more police; rinse and repeat.

Kelly Chudler's You Are Not Expected To Understand This depicts the police-beat algorithm.

Even shorter code changed the world: the tracking pixel.

Lily Hay Newman's chapter on monitoring pixels says you probably interact with this code every day. It's a snippet of HTML that embeds a single tiny pixel in an email. Getting an email with a tracking code spies on me. As follows: My browser requests the single-pixel image as soon as I open the mail. My email sender checks to see if Clives browser has requested that pixel. My email sender can tell when I open it.

Adding a tracking pixel to an email is easy:

<img src="URL LINKING TO THE PIXEL ONLINE" width="0" height="0">

An older example: Ellen R. Stofan and Nick Partridge wrote a chapter on Apollo 11's lunar module bailout code. This bailout code operated on the lunar module's tiny on-board computer and was designed to prioritize: If the computer grew overloaded, it would discard all but the most vital work.

When the lunar module approached the moon, the computer became overloaded. The bailout code shut down anything non-essential to landing the module. It shut down certain lunar module display systems, scaring the astronauts. Module landed safely.

22-line code

POODOO    INHINT
    CA  Q
    TS  ALMCADR

    TC  BANKCALL
    CADR  VAC5STOR  # STORE ERASABLES FOR DEBUGGING PURPOSES.

    INDEX  ALMCADR
    CAF  0
ABORT2    TC  BORTENT

OCT77770  OCT  77770    # DONT MOVE
    CA  V37FLBIT  # IS AVERAGE G ON
    MASK  FLAGWRD7
    CCS  A
    TC  WHIMPER -1  # YES.  DONT DO POODOO.  DO BAILOUT.

    TC  DOWNFLAG
    ADRES  STATEFLG

    TC  DOWNFLAG
    ADRES  REINTFLG

    TC  DOWNFLAG
    ADRES  NODOFLAG

    TC  BANKCALL
    CADR  MR.KLEAN
    TC  WHIMPER

This fun book is worth reading.

I'm a contributor to the New York Times Magazine, Wired, and Mother Jones. I've also written Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World and Smarter Than You Think: How Technology is Changing Our Minds. Twitter and Instagram: @pomeranian99; Mastodon: @clive@saturation.social.

Cryptoshit. This thing is crazy to buy.

Charlie Munger is revered and powerful in finance.

Munger, vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, is noted for his wit, no-nonsense attitude to investment, and ability to spot promising firms and markets.

Munger's crypto views have upset some despite his reputation as a straight shooter.

“There’s only one correct answer for intelligent people, just totally avoid all the people that are promoting it.” — Charlie Munger

The Munger Interview on CNBC (4:48 secs)

This Monday, CNBC co-anchor Rebecca Quick interviewed Munger and brought up his 2007 statement, "I'm not allowed to have an opinion on this subject until I can present the arguments against my viewpoint better than the folks who are supporting it."

Great investing and life advice!

If you can't explain the opposing reasons, you're not informed enough to have an opinion.

In today's world, it's important to grasp both sides of a debate before supporting one.

Rebecca inquired:

Does your Wall Street Journal article on banning cryptocurrency apply? If so, would you like to present the counterarguments?

Mungers reply:

I don't see any viable counterarguments. I think my opponents are idiots, hence there is no sensible argument against my position.

Consider his words.

Do you believe Munger has studied both sides?

He said, "I assume my opponents are idiots, thus there is no sensible argument against my position."

This is worrisome, especially from a guy who once encouraged studying both sides before forming an opinion.

Munger said:

National currencies have benefitted humanity more than almost anything else.

Hang on, I think we located the perpetrator.

Munger thinks crypto will replace currencies.

False.

I doubt he studied cryptocurrencies because the name is deceptive.

He misread a headline as a Dollar destroyer.

Cryptocurrencies are speculations.

Like Tesla, Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc.

Crypto won't replace dollars.

In the interview with CNBC, Munger continued:

“I’m not proud of my country for allowing this crap, what I call the cryptoshit. It’s worthless, it’s no good, it’s crazy, it’ll do nothing but harm, it’s anti-social to allow it.” — Charlie Munger

Not entirely inaccurate.

Daily cryptos are established solely to pump and dump regular investors.

Let's get into Munger's crypto aversion.

Rat poison is bitcoin.

Munger famously dubbed Bitcoin rat poison and a speculative bubble that would implode.

Partially.

But the bubble broke. Since 2021, the market has fallen.

Scam currencies and NFTs are being eliminated, which I like.

Whoa.

Why does Munger doubt crypto?

Mungers thinks cryptocurrencies has no intrinsic value.

He worries about crypto fraud and money laundering.

Both are valid issues.

Yet grouping crypto is intellectually dishonest.

Ethereum, Bitcoin, Solana, Chainlink, Flow, and Dogecoin have different purposes and values (not saying they’re all good investments).

Fraudsters who hurt innocents will be punished.

Therefore, complaining is useless.

Why not stop it? Repair rather than complain.

Regrettably, individuals today don't offer solutions.

Blind Areas for Mungers

As with everyone, Mungers' bitcoin views may be impacted by his biases and experiences.

OK.

But Munger has always advocated classic value investing and may be wary of investing in an asset outside his expertise.

Mungers' banking and insurance investments may influence his bitcoin views.

Could a coworker or acquaintance have told him crypto is bad and goes against traditional finance?

Right?

Takeaways

Do you respect Charlie Mungers?

Yes and no, like any investor or individual.

To understand Mungers' bitcoin beliefs, you must be critical.

Mungers is a successful investor, but his views about bitcoin should be considered alongside other viewpoints.

Munger’s success as an investor has made him an influencer in the space.

Influence gives power.

He controls people's thoughts.

Munger's ok. He will always be heard.

I'll do so cautiously.

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.