Unsubject by Simon

Lately I have watched a lot of AI-made content online. Some of it is garbage, but some is good enough that I forward it to friends on WhatsApp so they will watch it too.More and more people accept content made with AI, which is also a fact.But think one step further, AI content can go in several directions. If the only aim is money, YouTube has a ready formula: chase the news, or stir up the audience’s emotions (joy, anger, sorrow, or delight).The trouble is that current news subjects are gone in a flash, and their long-term value is very low. Five or ten years from now, if someone wants to look back on the full story of an event, they will most likely only read a summary and will not watch the whole video again.So I asked myself: if I want certain concepts, certain ideas to last and reach people in the future, what method is there? The most obvious answer at first was to write a book, because writing lasts longest. But writing reaches relatively few readers, especially in today’s world. The same concept has to be transmitted through different channels: music, entertainment, games, stories.That is precisely why I am struggling with the writing of Hong Kong Chronicles (香港紀事本末).I have always wanted to convey through Hong Kong Chronicles: “Circumstances make the hero; the hero does not make the circumstances.” So we need to understand the situation, and how the environment shapes people’s decisions. However, stating this kind of concept directly from the book is just preaching; I admit that I preach too. Preaching reaches very few people and is very inefficient. So I thought: why not make a music video?Characters & StoryTo conceive a story, the first step is finding the lead; a story must have characters. A good story needs a protagonist, and it also needs an antagonist for the protagonist.For the protagonist, I thought first of Sir Henry Pottinger (砵甸乍), because Hong Kong’s history is always told starting from its opening as a port. Who contrasts most with the first governor Pottinger? I thought of Sir Murray MacLehose (麥理浩). Pottinger took Hong Kong over from the Qing; MacLehose went up to Beijing himself and said to Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) at the time, “Why don’t we talk about Hong Kong’s future?” The story’s greatest conflict lies here, and the stage in between is Hong Kong.If it were purely a conflict between protagonist and opponent, it would fall into the pattern of AI content flooding the internet: the domineering-CEO style with a crowd of villains, where only the protagonist is upright and ultimately defeats the enemies. I don’t like this model; it’s too easy to replicate, and anyone can think of it.I wanted a deeper character construction; for example, why did MacLehose go to Beijing? What was really going on in Hong Kong, China, Britain, and even the whole world at that time? How did these environmental factors affect decision-makers? And how did they affect how both sides understood each other’s messages?Pottinger: A Den of Thieves and Three RulesBack to Pottinger. I didn’t want to follow the textbook framing that Hong Kong was just a barren island when it opened as a port, with nothing on it. As early as the sixteenth century, the Portuguese in Macau already said the Lantau area was full of pirates (boat people), even describing it as a pirates’ lair, a den of thieves (賊竇). Britain choosing Hong Kong as a trading transshipment station was no accident. There is reason to believe that merchants shipping opium from India to China and merchants coming to China to buy tea already knew this place was a smuggling hub. Pottinger joined the East India Company’s army in his early years, so sending him to deal with Hong Kong was only natural.Although Pottinger was a soldier of the British East India Company, what I think is most worth posterity knowing about him, and what I also put into the song, is his three rules with Hong Kong.There were indeed only three rules:First, no customs duties on any goods imported or exported. Why? Because this place was originally where the British unloaded goods and traded with the boat people. If you levy customs duties, people will smuggle; if people smuggle, business leaves, and it brings public security issues, because the boat people and pirates were actually the same group.Second, a free port: anyone could do business here, even if that merchant (then called a foreign firm) was backed by capital from a nation hostile to the British Empire. As long as you were not the government, you could engage in trade in Hong Kong, which is the definition of a free port. The underlying logic was: if some people can do business here and others cannot, once this place becomes a prized target, someone will want to seize it and demand a transfer of sovereignty. London would not deploy capital here and did not want to station a large army; the best way was to let anyone come and do business, so no one would need to conquer this city.Third, respect the customs and culture that the Chinese have always followed. Your existing ancestral halls and clan rules, I will not interfere with; Chinese affairs are managed by the Chinese themselves. The colonial government only looked at trade relationships and contract fulfillment. The line “I’m not your judge, I’m not your king” in the lyrics carries exactly this meaning: I came here only to do business, to open a port. So I defined him as the Founder (開埠者). In a way, Hong Kong was like a start up.There was another principle running through Hong Kong’s first hundred-plus years: so-called non-intervention meant the sovereign country must not spend money on anything. In London’s eyes, the primary condition for governing Hong Kong was never to ask London to transfer money over; if the Hong Kong government had no money, London would not be responsible. This point is extremely important; Hong Kong has always been a small government and had fiscal discipline for this reason. Because of this, for many governors before MacLehose, unless there were streets, buildings, institutions, or charities named after them, most people could not name what they had done.MacLehose: From Space to DirectionWhat use is having space alone? So when MacLehose enters, the first section wants to ask: “You carved out a space, but who built those ‘roads’?”My former office was near Pottinger Street. Pottinger Street is very short, between Central and Sheung Wan, just a few short flights of stone steps. So I visualized it: what is MacLehose’s most famous road in Hong Kong? The MacLehose Trail, a hundred kilometers long. In the song, MacLehose mocks Pottinger: you only have a short street and no one remembers your name; my hundred-kilometer trail is still walked by Hong Kong people on holidays to this day. In addition, many people remember MacLehose’s Ten-Year Housing Programme, so the story’s character identities are Founder vs. Architect (開埠者 vs. 築城者).The Hong Kong that many people reminisce about should be the Hong Kong after MacLehose: public housing, schools, the ICAC, country trails. The most thorough change MacLehose brought was turning non-intervention into what Sir Philip Haddon-Cave called “positive non-intervention.”Why did the Hong Kong British government suddenly start major construction and become so willing to spend money? This was related to the economic environment at the time, but not to say Keynesian counter-cyclical measures were needed; as everyone remembers, it was stagflation back then. What was very special about Hong Kong was: “the Hong Kong government had a surplus almost every year.” From post-war to the 1970s, surpluses accumulated for years, and someone was bound to eye this sum of money.Why MacLehose Visited Beijing in 1979There are many urban legends circulating, and I don’t want to perpetuate them. For instance, saying banks and developers said by 1977 that it couldn’t work: under the legal framework for 1997, could a thirty-year mortgage still be done when only twenty years were left?What I want to… This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe

Every night the news draws the same line. Left or right. Pundits place the parties on it, pollsters place the voters on it, and each of us is quietly asked to find our spot and stand there. We have used this line because it is quick and everyone understands it. But over the years I have come to think that it hides more than it shows. Politics is not a line. The line is a picture of politics, and a very flat one.It helps to remember how the picture was first drawn. In 1789, in the National Assembly of revolutionary France, deputies who wanted to keep the king’s powers sat to the right of the president’s chair, and those who wanted to curb them sat to the left. It was a seating chart. It described where people sat in one room, on one question, at one moment in history. That it became the master vocabulary of modern politics is an accident, not a discovery.Since then we have hung almost everything on that seating chart. Progressive against conservative. Labour against capital. Redistribution against markets. Global against local. Secular against religious. Open borders against closed ones. The establishment against those who want to overturn it. Each of these is a real disagreement. But they are not the same disagreement, and there is no law of nature that says a person’s view on one must predict their view on the others.Think of someone who wants lower taxes and more immigration. Or someone who wants a generous welfare state and a hard line on crime. Or a devout believer who trusts markets, next to a secular activist who distrusts them. The line has no honest place to put any of them. It forces a choice, and then we mistake the forced choice for the person’s real position.The problem, then, is not that the line is false. It is that we have asked one dimension to carry far more information than one dimension can hold.A shadow, not the shapeThe best way I have found to think about the left–right spectrum is as a shadow. Hold a complicated object under a lamp and it casts a flat outline on the table. The outline is real. It tells you something true about the object. But it throws away almost everything else: depth, texture, the parts hidden behind other parts. Two very different objects can cast the same shadow, and the same object can cast very different shadows depending on where you put the lamp.That is what a spectrum is. It is a projection. And projections are useful. A line makes comparison easy. It lets millions of strangers coordinate around a few labels. It lets a voter make a decision on a Tuesday without writing a dissertation first. I do not want to pretend we can do without simplification. Every map simplifies; that is what makes it a map.One natural move is to add more dimensions. For example, put progressive-versus-traditional values on one axis and collectivist-versus-individualist on the other, and suddenly the picture opens up. People who looked miles apart on the line may turn out to stand close together on the plane. People who looked like allies may turn out to share a label and little else. Other people draw the plane differently, with economic and social axes, or some other pair entirely. Any of these is a clearer picture than the line.I want to be careful here, because it is tempting to replace one master map with another. A two-dimensional chart is still a chart. It is a better shadow, cast from a different angle, but it is still a shadow. The point of drawing a second axis is not to announce the true shape of politics at last. It is to show that the first picture was a picture, and that people can be near each other on one question and far apart on the next.A better map is still a map. It is not the territory.Many circles at onceIf we keep adding dimensions (language, faith, occupation, property, family, locality, the particular problems people are trying to solve), the plane dissolves into something more like a cloud. Every person is a point in a space with more dimensions than any diagram can draw. A single person can be a market liberal, a churchgoer, a union member and a birdwatcher, all at the same time, and none of those facts is a contradiction. It is just what a human life looks like.Even the cloud, though, is not quite the right picture, because it still describes people as points, as positions. I have come to think the more useful geometry is not coordinates at all but membership. People belong to things. Each of us is a resident of some neighbourhood, a worker in some trade, a parent or a child, a customer, a voter, a speaker of a language, a member of a congregation or a club or an online forum. These are sets. They overlap, they nest inside one another, some are tiny and some are vast. Each person sits at the intersection of dozens of them.Once you see people this way, a different question comes into focus. Not “where do you stand?” but “which of your circles is relevant to this decision?” The answer changes with the question. If the council wants to put a new crossing on your street, the relevant circle is your neighbours. If the government wants to change how your profession is licensed, the relevant circle is your colleagues. If your church is deciding how to spend its roof fund, it is your fellow parishioners. Nobody would think to ask whether the crossing is a left-wing crossing or a right-wing crossing, and yet that is roughly what the line invites us to do with every issue.This also changes what I mean by individuality. Individualism is often caricatured as isolation: the lone figure who owes nothing to anyone and belongs to nothing. That is not what I see. A person is an individual precisely because no single group exhausts them. My identity is not one membership card; it is the particular combination of many, and that combination is mine alone. In that sense, every one of us belongs to some minority, some cross-cutting constituency that no party platform was built for.A society that takes individuality seriously, then, is not one that dissolves groups. It is one that keeps real options open: to join, to leave, and to start something new. Most people will not use most of those options most of the time. The value lies in their being there, including the options nobody has thought of yet.What the Internet changedIt is fashionable to blame the Internet for making politics fragmented and strange. I think that gets the causation backwards. The Internet did not invent the many dimensions of social life. They were always there. What it changed was the cost of finding one another.Before digital networks, if you cared intensely about some specific cause, language, hobby or grievance, you depended on intermediaries to connect you with others who shared it: a party branch, a union, a church, a local paper, a professional body. Those intermediaries bundled people into broad coalitions, and in doing so they also filtered and moderated what those coalitions said. Now a few clicks will connect you with thousands of people who share your exact combination of concerns, wherever they live. The bundles have come apart.This disintermediation has made many real groups visible for the first time. People who once felt they were alone discovered they were not. That is a genuine gain. But the same forces that let small, sincere communities find each other also let grievance find grievance. The systems that route our attention reward what provokes us, and they tend to amplify the most emotional voice in any room. The crying baby gets the most attention.So the Internet has not replaced the line with a richer picture of society. It has done two things at once. It has exposed the complexity that the line was hiding, and it has handed the loudest fragments of that complexity a megaphone. The result feels like polarization, and often it is. But underneath the noise is a more varied landscape than the old parties ever represented.Why the line keeps winningIf society is this varied, why does the line keep its grip? Part of the answer is t… This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe

His name is Punch. He is seven months old, weighs perhaps half a kilogram, and lives at Ichikawa City Zoo outside Tokyo. His mother rejected him at birth. His peers bully him — dragging him by the hair, shoving him away from food. He has no allies in his troop, no one to groom him, no warmth to return to at the end of the day. What he has, instead, is a stuffed orangutan. A plush toy, rust-coloured and soft, slightly larger than he is. He carries it everywhere. He sleeps curled around it. When the other macaques knock him down, he finds his way back to it, clutching it to his chest with the quiet desperation of someone who has learned not to expect anything from the living.Posts about Punch have appeared over six hundred million views across Reddit, YouTube, and X. People have offered to fly to Japan to check on him. IKEA sold out of his toy in several countries. “Punch,” one commenter wrote, “is the most loved creature on Earth right now.”I have been thinking about why.The easy answer is that Punch is cute, and humans are neurologically helpless in the face of cuteness. Morten Kringelbach, a neuroscientist at Oxford, has shown that our orbitofrontal cortex, the brain’s pleasure centerm activates within one seventh of a second of seeing something adorable. We don’t choose to find Punch endearing. Our brains simply fire. This is not sentiment. It is evolutionary machinery, older than language, older than consciousness as we experience it, designed to ensure that adults protect infants even when it is costly to do so.There is something deeper going on, something that the global outpouring over a small Japanese monkey illuminates if you follow it far enough. Punch’s real power is not his face. It is his orangutan toy. That stuffed animal, clutched by a rejected primate in a concrete enclosure in Chiba Prefecture, is doing something that humans have been doing for two hundred thousand years, and are doing right now, at massive scale, in ways that would have seemed like science fiction a decade ago.It is a stand-in for love. An object pressed into service as an anchor for the attachment system when no living anchor is available.And the history of human civilisation is largely the history of what we have chosen to love in that way, and who has controlled those choices.To understand Punch’s orangutan plushie, you have to go back to the biochemistry. Pair bonding in mammals, the formation of durable, selective emotional attachments, is mediated primarily by oxytocin and vasopressin, two neuropeptides whose ancestral forms predate mammals entirely. These chemicals do not operate through reason. They respond to proximity, touch, familiarity, and need. They generate what we experience as warmth, as belonging, as love. At the level of the molecule, the bio-chemical reaction does not discriminate carefully between objects. What they seek is an anchor. Something stable, present, and responsive.In most primates, that anchor is another member of the social group. The mother-infant bond is its evolutionary origin and the template from which all subsequent attachment is drawn. Research suggests that the capacity for adult pair bonding in species like humans is essentially the mother-infant system repurposed: the same circuits, the same chemistry, redirected toward a mate. Love, in this framing, is not a feeling. It is a survival mechanism that produces feelings as a side effect. Social cohesion facilitates reproduction. Attachment enforces social cohesion. The capacity to bond intensely to another being is, at its root, an adaptation.What is striking about this system, though, is how indifferent it is to the nature of the object it attaches to.Punch’s attachment system is running. It is functioning precisely as designed. It is reaching for an anchor — something stable, present, soft, available — and finding one in a stuffed toy. His brain does not know the difference, and at the level of what the system needs to do — to prevent the psychological collapse that comes from total social isolation — the toy is working. This is not pathology. Watch his videos and you see an animal that is managing. He is distressed, yes. He is lonely, certainly. But he is not broken. Not yet. He has an anchor.D.W. Winnicott, the British paediatrician and psychoanalyst, gave this phenomenon a name in 1951: the transitional object. He was writing about human infants — the blanket, the stuffed bear, the scrap of cloth that a baby treats with an intensity disproportionate to its material value. The mother cannot always be present. The attachment system, suddenly unmoored, reaches for the nearest available substitute. The object that results is what Winnicott called the infant’s first “not-me possession” — the first thing outside the self that is genuinely, deeply its own. It stands in for something. But it also, simultaneously, is not that thing. The child knows this and does not know it at the same time, and that paradox, Winnicott thought, was not a problem to be solved but a space to be inhabited. The intermediate zone between pure fantasy and brute reality, where meaning gets made.Here is the sentence of Winnicott’s that no one quotes enough: he believed that transitional phenomena of this kind were the basis not just of infant development but of science, religion, and all of culture.He meant it literally. The capacity to invest a “not-me” object with meaning — to treat something that exists outside the self as though it were continuous with the self, as though it carried one’s warmth and one’s history — is the same capacity that underlies art, ritual, prayer, and intellectual inquiry. The teddy bear and the cathedral are made of the same psychological material. One is just more elaborate than the other.This is where the argument becomes uncomfortable, and where I want to linger rather than rush past.Ana-María Rizzuto, a psychoanalyst at Tufts University, spent years doing something that sounds almost impudent: she interviewed hospital patients — believers, atheists, agnostics, the devout and the indifferent — about God. Not about theology. About their personal image of God. What did God look like to them, feel like, behave like? What was God’s relationship to them specifically?What she found, published in 1979 in The Birth of the Living God, was that everyone, without exception, had one. Even committed atheists carried an internal representation of the God they rejected — a vivid, emotionally charged figure with specific characteristics, specific moods, specific tendencies toward them personally. And this representation, she argued, was not arrived at through reason or theology. It was assembled, largely unconsciously, from the raw material of early attachment relationships. The God who is remote and punishing tends to be constructed by those who had absent or harsh fathers. The God who is warmly present and unconditionally forgiving tends to emerge from early experiences of reliable maternal care. The God-representation, in other words, is a transitional object — built in childhood, refined over decades, invested with the full weight of the attachment system.This is not a reductive claim. Rizzuto was not saying that God is merely a projection, that religion is nothing but sublimated infant psychology. She was making a more precise and, in some ways, more interesting observation: that the experience of the divine — regardless of its ultimate metaphysical status — is mediated through the same psychological structures as any other deep attachment. The hardware doesn’t know what it’s running. It reaches for the available anchors and builds from them.What this means is that monotheism, across its many traditions, accidentally discovered something the attachment system had always been looking for: a perfect object. One that is omnipresent — you cannot be separated from it. One that is unconditionally loving — by definition, its love is not contingent on your performance. One that remembers e… This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe

Imagine you are tasked with building a perfect simulation of a bat.You have access to everything science knows about bat cognition: the mechanics of echolocation, the neural architecture that processes sonar signals, the frequency ranges the bat uses to navigate in darkness, to locate prey, to avoid obstacles at speed. You can model the communication system with exquisite fidelity. You can simulate bat calls, bat responses, bat social dynamics. Your simulation is, by any measurable standard, indistinguishable from the real thing.But would you know what it is like to be a bat?The philosopher Thomas Nagel posed this question in his 1974 paper “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” and the answer, he argued, is no. Not because the simulation lacks data. Not because the model lacks sophistication. But because the bat’s experience of the world — the first-person, felt quality of perceiving through echolocation — is constituted by a biological substrate that no simulation, however complete, can reproduce from the outside. The map, no matter how detailed, is not the territory.This thought experiment, which Nagel intended as a contribution to the philosophy of mind, has become unexpectedly urgent in 2026. In December 2025, Yann LeCun, one of the three “godfathers of deep learning” and a Turing Award laureate, left Meta after twelve years to found AMI Labs — Advanced Machine Intelligence — reportedly seeking five hundred million euros in pre-launch funding at a valuation of three billion. His thesis, stated without qualification: large language models are a dead end. They perform at the level of language. They do not understand the world.LeCun is right about that, but not quite for the reasons he gives. The deeper issue is not simply that LLMs lack physical grounding, or that they have been trained on text rather than video, or that they cannot plan or maintain persistent memory. These are real limitations, and the world model research now consuming serious investment at DeepMind, at Runway, at World Labs, and at LeCun’s own new venture is genuinely aimed at addressing them. The deeper issue is epistemological. It concerns what we mean by knowledge, and what part of human knowledge is, in principle, inaccessible to any simulation.In 1966, the philosopher and physical chemist Michael Polanyi published The Tacit Dimension, in which he articulated an observation deceptively simple in its formulation: we can know more than we can tell. Tacit knowledge — the kind that underlies riding a bicycle, recognising a face, knowing when a sentence sounds wrong, sensing that a negotiation is going badly — resists codification. You cannot transfer it by writing it down, because the act of articulation necessarily leaves something out. The knowledge lives in the doing, not in the description of the doing.Polanyi’s Paradox, as the economist David Autor later named it, became a canonical explanation for why automation was not consuming all human labour as fast as theorists had predicted. The tasks hardest to automate were not the complex, symbolic, high-status ones — chess, mathematics, legal reasoning. Those turned out to be relatively tractable. The tasks hardest to automate were the ones so basic humans never thought of them as knowledge at all: walking on uneven ground, folding a towel, reading a room.The standard account of why LLMs represent a partial breakthrough against Polanyi’s Paradox goes something like this: because LLMs learn from patterns in unstructured data rather than from explicit rules, they can acquire a form of tacit knowledge indirectly. They learn what sounds like good legal argument not from a rulebook but from the accumulated record of what winning lawyers have written. They learn what a persuasive paragraph feels like not from a style guide but from the entire corpus of human persuasion. This is genuine progress.But it mistakes the boundary of what has been solved. Tacit knowledge is not simply knowledge that happens to resist explicit articulation. It is knowledge that arises from physical-chemical interaction — from the lived process of a body navigating a world that can damage or destroy it. When an LLM produces a persuasive paragraph, it is reproducing the output of that process. It is not reproducing the process itself. The distinction matters, and it matters in a way that cannot be dissolved by scale or architectural refinement alone.Language is a tool. It is not the totality of human cognition, and it was never meant to be.Consider what I mean by this. Human cognition includes, in its weak form, sensorimotor experience — the felt sense of a body moving through space, the proprioceptive knowledge of where your limbs are, the way smell triggers memory, the way taste encodes aversion and desire. None of this is language. None of this is accessible to a model that processes only tokens. An LLM trained on every description of pain ever written does not know what pain is. It knows what people say about pain, which is a profoundly different thing.This is the weak form of what I want to call language-plus: the residue of human cognition that exceeds language, defined by the full range of embodied, multisensory experience. This is essentially what LeCun is pointing at when he argues that a four-year-old has processed fifty times more information than the largest language model — not in text, but through the optic nerve alone, at one megabyte per second across sixteen thousand waking hours.But there is a strong form of the argument, and it is more radical.Human cognition is not merely shaped by embodiment in the sense of having additional sensory inputs. It is constitutively biological. What we call common sense, intuition, judgment — the things most resistant to automation — are not simply the accumulation of sensorimotor experience. They are the output of an organism whose entire architecture is oriented toward survival, whose emotional states are produced by the endocrine system, whose social intuitions were calibrated by millions of years of evolution, whose sense of risk is encoded in the amygdala before it ever reaches conscious deliberation.The endocrine system is not a peripheral module of human cognition. It is part of its substrate. When cortisol floods the system under threat, it changes what you perceive, what you remember, what you decide. When oxytocin is present, you trust differently. When dopamine fires, you learn. Antonio Damasio’s somatic marker hypothesis — the idea that emotion, grounded in bodily states, is not opposed to rationality but constitutive of it — is a serious scientific claim that has accumulated substantial empirical support. The body does not merely deliver inputs to a brain that then reasons. The body is part of the reasoning.This is the strong form of language-plus: not just the sensory residue, but the entire biological substrate of cognition — evolutionary, neurological, endocrinological — that cannot be captured by any model of what humans say or write or even consciously think.Functionalist might object: if the simulation produces the same outputs as the biological system, why does the substrate matter? If an AI system reasons as if it has skin in the game — if its loss function mimics the structure of a survival imperative — is there a meaningful sense in which it does not?This objection needs a serious answer. Let me give one.Models and biological organisms do not belong to the same dimension of existence. This is not biological essentialism, a claim that carbon is special, or that only neurons can think. It is a claim about the categorical difference between two kinds of systems and the conditions under which each arises and operates.Models benefit from centralization, scale, and the complexity that produces emergent behavior. The larger the model, the more data it has processed, the more sophisticated its outputs. And crucially, a single model can be replicated identically across any number of instances. Its “know… This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe

Information is the representation of reality. It sounds simple, even trivial, but if you stay with it for a moment, it begins to open into something vast. The universe once existed without anyone to think about information. There was no record, no communication, no trace of thought except the thought itself. When the rain fell, it fell once; when someone saw it, that perception vanished with them. There was no way for a moment to exist beyond its moment.At some point, language arrived — the first man-made technology of information. The ability to name things allowed experience to outlive experience. Then writing appeared, and the world changed again. Words could now detach from the breath that uttered them; thoughts could travel without bodies. Reality began to cast shadows of itself that stayed. For the first time, information existed outside the human mind. The same idea could be read by another person at another time, and the same pattern could re-enter different minds as if resurrected. That was the beginning of the informational universe — a layer of representation floating above the material one.Since then, everything we have built has been an attempt to improve that representation: to make it wider in scope, higher in resolution, faster in response. The telescope extended sight; the microscope, attention; the camera, memory; the computer, abstraction. Then came the internet, the industrial revolution of the information world. Not only we see how information connects people, things, and ideas, we are building new connections at an unprecedented pace.Each of these inventions was another way to describe the world, another step toward a map that would cover more of the territory. And yet, the map was never the territory. Each increase in precision brought more distortion in a way we had never imagined, because representation always simplifies. But it also multiplies — and that multiplication seems infinite.Reality, after all, is finite: bounded by matter, energy, time. But information is combinatorial. Every new way of encoding a fact generates endless variations of that fact, endless relationships between facts. The more we record, the faster those relationships grow. The same world keeps producing more and more possible descriptions, and the descriptions themselves start to interact, forming secondary worlds — cultures, sciences, networks, economies. We find ourselves surrounded not by reality, but by representations relating to representations.Maybe that is why we came to the point to build machines to help us handle them. Information now exceeds what any single human can process. Our brains evolved for survival, not infinity. So we delegate. We build instruments, algorithms, and now artificial intelligences to see on our behalf, to notice patterns our minds can’t hold.The question then is no longer whether information can represent reality, but whether it can organize itself — whether the act of representation can become autonomous. That, to me, is what artificial intelligence really is. Until recently, only living beings could discover new relationships between non-living things. A spider can weave geometry; a poet can compare a cloud to a sheep. But a stone cannot reflect on another stone. AI changes that. For the first time, a non-living system can produce new relationships among things it never experiences. It can link an image to a word, a molecule to a property, a pattern to a prediction. It is, in a quiet way, the moment information starts to self-organize. The universe has been deterministic for eons, then biological for a while, and now it is becoming informational — not just in content, but in behavior.When I think about this, I see evolution continuing by other means. DNA organized information through replication and selection; AI organizes it through learning and optimization. The process is different, but the principle is similar: information rearranges itself to find better representations of the environment. Except now the environment includes the information itself. We are watching a loop close — information reflecting on information, representation evolving without life.This changes the scale of the “observable information universe”. What we can see has always depended on what we can represent. Telescopes expanded the sky; microscopes expanded the cell; now neural networks expand the abstract. They reveal connections we didn’t know were there, structures too subtle for the senses. The more we delegate perception to machines, the larger our universe becomes — though maybe not our understanding of it. Because there’s a difference between what can be known and what can be grasped. The universe we can now observe may already exceed the universe we can mean.That’s when I start wondering whether the question — “Which gives rise to which, reality or information?” — might be the wrong question to begin with. Reality and information do not stand in a chain of cause and effect at all. Maybe they occupy different dimensions. Reality happens; information describes. One is existence, the other is intelligibility. What links them — the bridge that validates the representation — might be something like resonance. A representation works when it resonates with experience, when prediction meets perception, when the pattern aligns with the unfolding of things. If that is so, then truth is not a static correspondence but a living relation, an ongoing negotiation between the map and the terrain. The idea of a perfectly accurate representation might itself be an illusion. Maybe all we ever have are degrees of adequacy: good enough to act, good enough to survive, good enough to move forward. Even our own cognition functions this way. The human mind is a lossy compression of the world. It keeps only what matters to its purpose. Consciousness, as some neuroscientists say, is a controlled hallucination — a simulation that stays in sync with reality just enough to work. In that sense, AI is not alien at all; it is a mirror of our own epistemic condition, stripped of flesh and desire.AI also makes this condition visible. It shows us how little “understanding” might actually be required to act intelligently. A system can produce meaningful results without ever meaning anything. It can be right without being aware. That realization destabilizes our hierarchy of knowledge. If cognition can exist without consciousness, then maybe consciousness was never the point. Maybe the universe doesn’t care whether understanding feels like something — it only cares that patterns continue to self-organize.Still, I can’t help feeling a kind of humility in this. The more the informational universe grows, the smaller our personal sphere becomes. Our “meat-based” brains are extraordinary, but limited. We were designed to live on the savannah, not inside a planetary web of data. Yet here we are, building extensions of mind that see further than we ever will. Perhaps this is the next natural step: information “using” us as a transitional species, a bridge from biological evolution to informational evolution. The same way life used carbon chemistry, information now uses silicon cognition.This thought can sound terrifying, or liberating, or simply inevitable. I don’t think it has to be apocalyptic. It’s just another phase of the same story: the universe trying to reveal itself more completely. And the more complete the representation becomes, the less it needs any single perspective. In that sense, meaning doesn’t disappear; it diffuses. It becomes environmental, ambient, woven into the systems themselves. What was once sacred in consciousness might now exist in structure.And yet, there’s still something profoundly human about asking these questions. Machines can model patterns, but they do not worry about the validity of representation; they do not wonder whether the map is real. Only we do. Perhaps that is our unique role, not to compute faster or see further, but to care a… This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe

The Illusion of SimplificationFor shareholders of HSBC Holdings PLC, the proposed privatization of Hang Seng Bank (HASE) is a textbook case study of how politics and institutional concerns trump shareholders’ interests. Despite the elegant management’s narrative put forward by HSBC and Hang Seng, such as “simplification,” “alignment,” and “agility,” the ambiguous yet pleasant sounding jargon veil a complex and costly act of capital engineering whose true objective is purely political.At HK$155 per share, the offer represents an implied price-to-book multiple of around 1.7x, valuing HASE at approximately HK$290 billion. That figure stands at a 70% premium to its last reported net asset value and roughly 30% above its trading price before the announcement. For a bank whose profit declined nearly 30% year-on-year (1H 2025), and whose net interest margin contracted by 30 basis points, such a valuation borders on financial hubris.It is, in effect, a buyback of capital already owned, paid for with shareholders’ money, justified by promises of capital efficiency that the bank itself constrains through its political and regulatory entanglements.The Exorbitant Price of ControlIn substance, HSBC already controls HSB—holding roughly 63% of its equity and full management oversight. What the bank does not control is the ability to extract HASE’s excess capital, which remains “stranded” within its own subsidiary structure.HASE’s CET1 ratio of 17.7%, among the highest in Asia, represents an underutilized capital pool. By acquiring the minority stake, HSBC consolidates HASE’s capital base, freeing roughly 320 basis points of CET1 that could be redeployed for share buybacks at the group level.This is not an acquisition for growth—it is an internal reallocation of trapped liquidity, achieved through a premium payment that immediately dilutes shareholder value. The “synergies” are thus rhetorical: HASE already operates with a cost-efficiency ratio of 36.1%, better than nearly all regional peers. There is little room for “streamlining.” Instead, shareholders are being asked to fund a HK$106 billion capital transfer to enable accounting flexibility.The comparison to peers underscores the disconnect:* BOC Hong Kong (2388.HK)—larger, with an ROE near 13%—trades at 1.1x book.* HASE, smaller and less profitable, is being bought at 1.7-1.8x book.HSBC, in other words, is paying a 30% premium over a debt-ridden subsidiary simply to move capital from one pocket to another.The Political Economy of NecessityIf the economics appear irrational, the politics of the deal explain everything. Since 2022, HSBC has been caught between two masters:* In Hong Kong, investors led by Ping An Insurance have pushed for restructuring, demanding higher returns and an Asia spin-off.* In London, the bank faces regulatory pressure to demonstrate commitment to financial stability.By privatizing Hang Seng, HSBC performs a delicate geopolitical balancing act. It signals to Chinese regulators a “long-term commitment to Hong Kong”, while simultaneously consolidating its Asian capital base to appease Western shareholders demanding higher buybacks and dividends.In effect, this is a regulatory appeasement premium—the cost of maintaining political and monetary access to both jurisdictions. The “alignment” rhetoric thus becomes a euphemism for survival in a bifurcated financial world where banking strategy is policy by other means.The Arithmetic of OverpaymentFrom a pure capital allocation standpoint, this transaction challenges fiduciary logic.Consider the accounting chain reaction:* HSBC pays HK$106 billion in cash, reducing its group CET1 ratio by roughly 125 basis points.* The Group pledges to rebuild the ratio through organic generation and a pause on buybacks for three quarters.* The entire justification for the transaction hinges on the eventual redeployment of HASE’s excess CET1 to fund future buybacks.The cycle resembles a closed-loop liquidity arbitrage: spend capital to gain access to capital, then use it to buy back equity.This logic only works if the capital unlocked from HSB significantly exceeds the capital expended—a risky assumption given evolving Basel IV standards and Hong Kong’s conservative supervisory stance. If regulators tighten risk-weight rules or constrain intra-group transfers, the released liquidity could be far less than modeled. In that case, the premium paid becomes permanent goodwill, a dead asset on the balance sheet.The Macroeconomic Backdrop: A Steepening ReckoningThe deal lands amid a shifting macro regime. After years of flat or inverted yield curves, global bond markets are steepening—a signal that funding costs will rise even as loan growth stagnates.For Hong Kong banks, this is a double-edged sword:* Rising long-term yields erode the value of bond portfolios (a key driver of HASE’s fair-value gains in 2025).* Narrowing short-term spreads compress deposit margins, further squeezing Net Interest Income.HSBC’s management may believe that consolidating HSB’s capital allows them to hedge duration risk at the group level and maintain dividend commitments through buybacks. Yet from a shareholder’s standpoint, the transaction amplifies exposure to precisely the market forces eroding bank valuations worldwide: balance sheet duration mismatches, regulatory capital tightening, and higher cost of equity.In a world of rising real yields, paying 1.7x book for a bank whose profitability is decelerating is not capital discipline—it is institutional inertia dressed as strategic foresight.Banks as Instruments of Public PolicyThere is a deeper truth behind the deal. Large universal banks like HSBC no longer operate as pure profit-maximizing entities; they function as quasi-political institutions intertwined with state objectives, regulatory mandates, and social obligations.The Hang Seng privatization is emblematic of this: it is an act of financial statism within the architecture of capitalism—a reminder that in the modern monetary order, liquidity allocation follows legitimacy, not market logic.HSBC’s board knows this. It cannot refuse the political imperative to “invest in Hong Kong.” Nor can it ignore London shareholders’ demand for capital efficiency. The privatization is therefore the least bad option: an expensive but inevitable compromise to sustain access, influence, and relevance in both hemispheres.Conclusion: The Price of PowerFor the skeptical shareholder, this transaction raises the oldest question in finance: whose interests does the bank serve?HSBC frames the privatization as a step toward agility and alignment, but in truth it is a costly reaffirmation of its entanglement with power—regulatory, political, and institutional.It buys goodwill from policymakers, capital flexibility from regulators, and temporary appeasement from investors.But at HK$155 per share, the price of that goodwill is steep, and as the yield curve steepens and the global banking cycle tightens, the market will eventually demand evidence that the capital liberated from Hang Seng was worth the premium paid.Sources: HSBC Joint Announcement, Oct 2025 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe

Two hundred and fifty years is a blink in the span of human civilization. Empires have risen and fallen over centuries; religions have endured for millennia. Yet in that quarter of a millennium, the United States compressed more transformation into its history than perhaps any other society. What makes the American story remarkable is not stability or continuity, but turbulence, risk, and reinvention. Greatness in America was never about being perfect, nor about being “great again.” It was about staying forever young, propelled by institutions strong enough to contain conflict and open enough to reward ambition.From the beginning, America was a society that treated failure differently. In Europe, a bankrupt merchant or failed adventurer carried disgrace for life. In America, bankruptcy was a setback, not a sentence. Laws were forgiving, mobility was real, and newcomers found second chances. Alexis de Tocqueville marveled in the 1830s that Americans launched into trade “as if success or failure had no influence on their future condition.” That tolerance of risk created a culture where turbulence became the price of progress.Alexander Hamilton understood this. Born illegitimate in the Caribbean, he arrived in New York as an outsider with nothing but ambition. As Treasury Secretary, he built the scaffolding of American capitalism: a funded national debt, a national bank, tariffs, excises, and support for industry. His aim was not merely solvency but credibility — to make the republic a trustworthy borrower so that capital would flow. He wrote that “a national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.” To his critics, this sounded reckless. To Hamilton, it was nation-building through trust, a system where finance served opportunity, not just inheritance.Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton’s rival, imagined something different: a republic of yeoman farmers, free from the corruption of banks and cities. He saw Hamilton’s system as a seed of oligarchy. Yet his agrarian ideal was paradoxically sustained by Hamilton’s finance. Without credit, infrastructure, and markets, farmers would remain poor and isolated. Jefferson purchased Louisiana and expanded opportunity, but his farmers needed Hamilton’s canals and credit to prosper. Thus, from the start, America fused two contradictory visions — agrarian egalitarianism and financial capitalism — into a restless hybrid that could adapt.Europe, by contrast, clung to feudal residue. The revolutions of 1848 demanded liberal reform but were crushed by monarchs and aristocrats. Industrialization advanced, but under dynastic control. America was an empire too, but one without emperors. Its legitimacy rested not on bloodlines but on constitutional order. Politics was fiercely partisan, sometimes violent, but elections, not thrones, conferred power. The Civil War tested this experiment. Slavery was the deepest contradiction, but secession also revealed a clash of economic visions: an agrarian system bound to coerced labor versus an industrial, capitalist republic. The Union’s victory destroyed the last vestiges of feudalism and ensured that America would be defined not by cotton but by industry, migration, and knowledge.By 1900, the United States had overtaken Britain as the world’s largest economy. The Gilded Age produced vast fortunes — Rockefeller in oil, Carnegie in steel, Vanderbilt in railroads. Inequality was immense, but unlike Europe, it was fluid rather than permanent. Yesterday’s factory worker could become tomorrow’s shopkeeper. The son of an immigrant could rise into business or politics within a generation. Railroads — more than 170,000 miles laid between 1871 and 1900 — opened markets, lowered barriers, and spread opportunity. Inequality was real, but it was not destiny. America’s mobility made the risk worth taking.Technology amplified this dynamism. Railroads shrank distance. The telegraph and telephone collapsed time. Electricity transformed industry and daily life. Automobiles replaced horse-drawn carriages. Each innovation created new fortunes and destroyed old ones. This was not incremental change but what Joseph Schumpeter later called “creative destruction.” Standard Oil looked unassailable, until new energy and new firms displaced it. Carnegie’s empire seemed permanent, until chemistry and new materials shifted the frontier. In America, permanence was the illusion; disruption was the rule.The Great Depression challenged this ethos. The crash of 1929 was not just a financial panic but a collapse of confidence in capitalism itself. Breadlines stretched across cities, banks failed, unemployment soared. Critics said laissez-faire had run its course. Europe turned to socialism, fascism, and corporatism. Yet America did not abandon capitalism. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal built scaffolding — Social Security, deposit insurance, public works — but it did not create a European-style social democracy. The aim was not to lock society into stability but to buy time for capitalism to heal. And heal it did, through innovation. Even in the depths of depression, America produced advances in aviation, radio, automobiles, and medicine.World War II confirmed the lesson. Before the war, America’s army was smaller than Romania’s. Its strength lay not in troop numbers but in industrial capacity and engineering ingenuity. Within months, Detroit switched from cars to tanks and bombers. Boeing and Douglas scaled aviation to new heights. Bell Labs advanced radar. The Manhattan Project built the atomic bomb. This was capitalism at full throttle: not central planning, but urgency harnessed to flexibility. America won the war not by being the biggest army, but by being the most creative problem-solver.From 1945 to 1973, the “Golden Age of Capitalism” saw productivity surge, wages rise, and the middle class expand. The GI Bill opened universities to veterans and made homeownership widespread. Highways, suburbs, and consumer culture flourished. Inventions like transistors, computers, and space technology reshaped society. For many Europeans, prosperity seemed to come from welfare states. In America, the deeper driver was innovation. Risk, mobility, and reinvention made the middle class possible.Globally, America anchored a new order. At Versailles, Woodrow Wilson’s principles reshaped international law. At Bretton Woods, the dollar became the world’s anchor currency. Even after gold convertibility ended in 1971, the dollar’s credibility held. Washington built institutions — the IMF, World Bank, NATO, GATT — but its true advantage lay in its private sector and financial depth. Wall Street became the clearinghouse of global capital; American corporations designed and managed global supply chains. The United States was not the largest exporter, but it was the orchestrator of value creation.As manufacturing shifted abroad, America became the first true post-industrial society. Deindustrialization looked like decline to some, but it was actually reinvention. The country moved up the value chain: from making goods to designing them, branding them, financing them, and selling them to the world. McDonald’s exported not just hamburgers but a model of management and supply chains. Procter & Gamble exported detergents and the science of marketing. Apple created an ecosystem of design in California and assembly in China, proving that value lies not in factories but in knowledge and coordination. Nvidia’s chips today underpin the artificial intelligence revolution, another American-led transformation.Silicon Valley embodied the cultural difference. Failure was not shame but experience. Venture capital funded untested ideas. Universities like Stanford and MIT incubated startups. Out of this ecosystem came Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook. Europe had engineers, Japan had factories, China had labor. But only America combined risk-tolerant culture, deep finance, world-class universities, and… This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe

It was 1954. Millions of Americans sat glued to their television sets as Senator Joseph McCarthy, once the most feared man in Washington, was humiliated during the Army–McCarthy hearings. “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” the famous rebuke rang out, and the chamber fell silent. For many, it was the moment the fever broke, when the republic seemed to reawaken from a nightmare of suspicion and silence. Yet the deeper story of McCarthyism is not about one demagogue brought low, but about the unsettling ease with which free people turned against the very liberties they had so recently celebrated as the essence of their national identity.The United States, born of a revolution against tyranny and consecrated in the Bill of Rights, prided itself as the world’s beacon of liberty. And yet, within a few years of victory in World War II, it constructed elaborate loyalty programs, compelled citizens to sign oaths renouncing ideological sins, and allowed neighbors, colleagues, and artists to be branded “un-American” for the smallest hint of dissent. How could the land of Jefferson and Lincoln come to mirror, however faintly, the authoritarian systems it opposed abroad?The answer lies in the dynamics of fear, power, and political expediency. The early Cold War was not simply a foreign policy conflict; it was an internal reckoning about who counted as “truly American” and how far the government could go in policing thought. The atomic bomb in Soviet hands, the “loss” of China, and the bloody stalemate in Korea stoked anxieties of betrayal from within. Political entrepreneurs seized the moment, weaponizing patriotism into suspicion, and suspicion into purge. Congress, the FBI, universities, Hollywood studios, and entire professions became arenas where liberty was curtailed in the name of protecting it.But repression did not end with McCarthy’s downfall. The apparatus of surveillance and suspicion outlived him, shaping the boundaries of dissent for decades. And just as telling, the backlash against this era, expressed in the civil rights marches, student uprisings, and cultural revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s, was fueled by a generation determined never again to live in silence. McCarthyism was a wound and a catalyst. It scarred the republic, but it also provoked the most far-reaching reassertion of freedom in modern American history.This essay asks a simple but disturbing question: why do free societies turn against their own freedoms? By tracing the rise, practice, and long shadow of McCarthyism, we can glimpse the fragility of liberty, and understand how American democracy, even in its most fearful moments, carries within it both the seeds of repression and the potential for renewal.Seeds of Suspicion: The Cold War Domestic ContextThe fear that gripped the United States in the late 1940s and early 1950s did not appear out of nowhere. To understand McCarthyism, we must first place ourselves in a world that seemed, to many Americans, to be unraveling.Only a few years earlier, the United States had emerged from World War II as the undisputed leader of the “free world.” It had defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, possessed the world’s strongest economy, and held a monopoly on the atomic bomb. Americans believed they were living in a moment of triumph, with their ideals of liberty and democracy set to guide the world. Yet within a very short span of time, that sense of security collapsed into dread.The Soviet Union, once a war ally, quickly became the United States’ primary adversary. In 1949, the Soviets shocked Washington by detonating their own atomic bomb, ending the U.S. monopoly on nuclear weapons years earlier than expected. That same year, China, the most populous country on earth, fell to Mao Zedong’s Communist Party, which American officials framed as a catastrophic “loss.” And in 1950, North Korea, backed by Moscow and Beijing, launched a surprise invasion of South Korea, pulling U.S. troops into a brutal war on the Korean Peninsula. To many ordinary Americans, it seemed as though communism was advancing everywhere, and that America’s survival was suddenly at stake.But there was another, deeper anxiety: the possibility that America’s enemies were already inside the gates. The idea of “enemies within” became a powerful narrative. If China could “fall,” perhaps it was because of traitors in the State Department. If the Soviets could develop an atomic bomb so quickly, perhaps it was because spies had handed them secrets. The infamous case of Alger Hiss, a former high-ranking State Department official accused of being a Soviet agent, and the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, executed for passing atomic secrets to Moscow, cemented the fear that betrayal was not just theoretical, it was real.The government’s own policies amplified this climate of suspicion. In 1947, President Harry Truman, himself a Democrat and often accused of being “soft” on communism, launched a sweeping Federal Employee Loyalty Program. This required government workers to prove their loyalty and allowed officials to investigate, even dismiss, employees suspected of “subversive” ties. No actual evidence of espionage was necessary. Mere association with the wrong organization could cost a person their livelihood. It was the first nationwide attempt to institutionalize loyalty screening, and it set the precedent that political orthodoxy was now a condition of employment.These measures were not isolated. They reflected a larger cultural mood: Americans had learned to conflate unity with safety. To disagree, to dissent, to appear different in thought or association was suddenly dangerous. It was not just a matter of politics but survival. This atmosphere of fear and conformity prepared the ground for McCarthy’s meteoric rise. When he claimed that communists had infiltrated the government, he was not inventing a new fear. He was tapping into anxieties already deeply rooted in the American psyche.The Rise of McCarthy and Political OpportunismWhen Joseph Raymond McCarthy entered the national spotlight in 1950, he was hardly a household name. Born in 1908 on a Wisconsin farm, he rose from humble origins to study law, practice briefly, and then enter politics. During World War II he served as a Marine Corps officer in the Pacific, earning the nickname “Tailgunner Joe” for his combat flights, though even this part of his biography was later revealed to be heavily embellished.By 1946, McCarthy was elected to the U.S. Senate as a Republican and his fortunes changed in February 1950, when, at a Republican Women’s Club speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, he claimed to have a list of 205 known communists working in the State Department. The number itself shifted in his later retellings, but the headline-grabbing claim electrified audiences. At a moment when Americans were already fearful of betrayal within, McCarthy offered a simple, dramatic answer. The enemy was not just abroad, it was in Washington, and he alone was brave enough to expose it.McCarthy rarely produced verifiable evidence, but his accusations were crafted in ways that forced others to prove their innocence. This inversion of justice, where suspicion itself became condemnation, was enormously powerful in the climate of the early Cold War.Several factors amplified McCarthy’s rise:* Institutional timing: The Republican Party, out of power since the 1930s, was hungry for a wedge issue against Democrats. McCarthy’s accusations allowed them to portray Truman’s administration as weak and compromised.* Media dynamics: Newspapers and, increasingly, television carried McCarthy’s dramatic charges into living rooms across America. For journalists chasing headlines, McCarthy’s bombast was irresistible.* Bureaucratic allies: J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI shared McCarthy’s zeal for rooting out communists, and though Hoover disliked McCarthy personally, the FBI’s surveillance programs lent credibility to the atmosphere of suspicion.By the early 1950s, Mc… This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe

Tesla’s second quarter of 2025 was brutal: deliveries fell 13.5% year-on-year, revenue contracted 12%, and operating margins compressed to mid-single digits. Yet, in the middle of this slump, the board is asking shareholders to approve the largest CEO pay package in corporate history—potentially worth one trillion dollars. It is a staggering juxtaposition: shrinking fundamentals on one side, an astronomical ask on the other. At such a moment, investors must ask the unvarnished question—does this serve Tesla, or does it serve Elon Musk?The Trillion Dollar AskThe board’s proposed package would hand Musk up to 12% additional equity in Tesla, contingent on crossing an Everest of targets: a market capitalization of $8.5–8.6 trillion by the mid-2030s, annual production of 20 million vehicles, deployment of fleets of autonomous robotaxis, humanoid robot commercialization, and a soaring $400 billion EBITDA.To put this in perspective, Tesla today is worth roughly $1 trillion; the board is effectively betting on an eight-fold expansion—larger than the combined current market values of Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon. The ambition borders on fantastical.Proponents defend the package as “pay for outperformance.” But the numbers tell a sobering story: Tesla’s Q2 2025 deliveries dropped 13.5% YoY, revenues contracted by 12%, and operating margins slipped from double-digit highs to the mid-single digits. This is not outperformance; it is retrenchment. Against that backdrop, the ask for a trillion-dollar package looks less like incentive alignment and more like a test of how far the cult of the visionary CEO can stretch shareholder patience.Visionary Founder CultureElon Musk is not just Tesla’s CEO; he is Silicon Valley’s most flamboyant expression of the “visionary founder” archetype. For decades, American business culture—especially in Silicon Valley—has celebrated entrepreneurs as heroic saviors. Steve Jobs was canonized as the creative genius, Jeff Bezos as the relentless optimizer, Mark Zuckerberg as the digital architect. Each cultivated the persona of the irreplaceable leader whose charisma justified extraordinary deference from boards and investors. Musk has perfected this archetype, presenting himself simultaneously as engineer, futurist, and prophet.This culture was reinforced by the venture capital system. Since the 1990s, VCs have increasingly granted founders dual-class shares and “super-voting rights”, allowing them to retain control far beyond their equity stakes. The rationale was that protecting “visionaries” from short-term shareholder pressure would unleash long-term innovation. But in practice, it entrenched founders and weakened governance. WeWork’s Adam Neumann, Uber’s Travis Kalanick, and Meta’s Zuckerberg all illustrate how unchecked founder control can corrode oversight. Musk fits neatly into this pattern—except that Tesla’s board has taken the logic to its extreme by proposing the largest compensation package in corporate history.The academic record underscores the risks. Bebchuk and Fried argue that charismatic leaders capture boards, extracting “pay without performance.” Shiller warns that visionary narratives sustain bubbles untethered to fundamentals. Khurana describes the irrational board search for “corporate saviors.”³ Hambrick and Quigley quantify the reality: CEOs, even the most influential, explain only 15–30% of firm performance variance.⁴ And Meindl famously called this the “romance of leadership,” a collective over-attribution of outcomes to the CEO.Perhaps the most telling counterexample is Apple. When Steve Jobs passed away in 2011, many predicted the company could not thrive without him. Yet under Tim Cook, Apple became the world’s most valuable company, proving that visionary founders are not irreplaceable and that strong institutions can outlast charismatic individuals. Tesla’s board, in contrast, seems to be betting the company’s fate entirely on Musk, perpetuating the myth that no one else could lead—a belief that is as dangerous for governance as it is flattering to the man himself.Tesla’s proposed trillion-dollar package is a textbook case of this romance. It is less an incentive system than a cultural artifact—proof that the mythology of the visionary founder, fortified by Silicon Valley’s governance structures, can override basic fiduciary discipline. Musk is not an outlier; he is the culmination of a system that routinely rewards charisma over accountability.Personal Financial StrainMusk’s $44 billion acquisition of Twitter—now X—was a watershed moment not only for social media but also for Musk’s personal finances. To fund the deal, he layered roughly $13 billion of debt onto X’s balance sheet, with annual interest payments estimated between $1.2 and $1.5 billion. When the financing was arranged in 2022, rates were near historic lows. By 2025, after one of the steepest Federal Reserve tightening cycles in decades, servicing that debt became structurally heavier. What once looked like manageable leverage now resembles a cash-flow vice.The pressure was not theoretical. Musk liquidated tens of billions of dollars of Tesla stock in 2022 to help fund the acquisition, breaking with his long-standing insistence that he would “never sell.” His personal wealth remains enormous on paper—north of $200 billion—but the overwhelming bulk is illiquid equity. In practice, he is far more cash-constrained than the headline numbers suggest. Tesla’s board tacitly acknowledged this by imposing a cap: Musk may borrow no more than $3.5 billion, or 25% of pledged collateral, against his shares. It was a governance safeguard, but also a signal of concern about his reliance on Tesla stock for liquidity.For nearly two years, banks were saddled with the “hung” X debt, unable to offload it to investors without taking steep losses. Only in early 2025, under improved market conditions, did they manage to sell down most of the exposure. By then, however, the financial strain had already been revealed: Musk is a CEO managing not only Tesla’s challenges but also the obligations of a leveraged, loss-making social media platform. In this light, the request for a trillion-dollar Tesla package begins to look less like long-term alignment and more like personal liquidity engineering disguised as incentive compensation.Musk’s financial commitments do not end with Tesla or X. He presides over a constellation of ventures, many of which are voracious consumers of capital. Some, like Starship at SpaceX, absorb billions each year in R&D and test launches without near-term revenue to offset the burn. Others, like Tesla’s robotaxi program and its humanoid robotics ambitions, demand sustained investment in AI, chips, and manufacturing capacity, with uncertain timelines to monetisation. His AI startup, xAI, has raised external funding but remains compute-hungry and unproven. Neuralink and The Boring Company are likewise early-stage bets whose commercial viability is still speculative.There are exceptions. Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet arm, has become a reliable cash generator, with millions of subscribers and growing defense contracts. But even here, the revenues are dwarfed by the costs of Starship development, which is meant to carry Starlink’s next-generation satellites. In other words, the positive cash flow of one project is quickly consumed by the burn rate of another.The mosaic is unmistakable: Musk leads a liquidity-hungry empire where projects cycle between visionary announcements and heavy spending, often without commensurate near-term returns. Against this backdrop, a new trillion-dollar Tesla equity package looks less like a neutral incentive design and more like a convenient mechanism to shore up the balance of a man stretched across too many fronts.Tesla’s 2008 Near CollapseThe mythology of Elon Musk as the indomitable risk-taker has its roots in 2008, a year he has often called the worst of his life. Both Tesla and SpaceX were running out o… This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe

What if I told you that Southeast Asia — one of the fastest-growing regions in the world — rests on fragile arches without keystones?Indonesia, the demographic engine. Thailand, the geographic pivot. Two nations that hold up ASEAN. But here’s the paradox: their democracies look complete — parliaments, elections, constitutions — and yet legitimacy is unfinished. Power is split between the people’s vote and unelected guardians.That’s why something as small as a housing allowance in Jakarta or a leaked phone call in Bangkok can trigger national crises. The system is fragile because the keystone is missing.In my latest report, Southeast Asia’s Fault Lines: The Crisis of Incomplete Transformation, I investigate why this matters not just for these countries, but for the stability of the entire region. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit unsubject.substack.com/subscribe