LOGIC, ‘CONTINUITY BIAS’ AND THE BALANCE OF IMPROBABILITIES
Those of us who understand the economy as an energy system know that fundamental change, long overdue, is being crystallised by the coronavirus crisis. Can that knowledge be the basis for establishing ‘competitive edge’?
The conclusion here is that it can, but realising this requires more than just knowing the difference between the logical (energy-driven) and the accepted-but-illogical (wholly financial) ways of interpreting the economy. We also need to recognise the ways in which continuity bias and extrapolation inhibit the application of logic and knowledge.
This understanding reveals scenarios which, whilst they may appear improbable, are far more plausible than consensus lines of thinking which have become impossible.
Government – right by default?
It’s been well said that governments will “always do the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities first”.
The Wuhan coronavirus crisis illustrates this axiom to good effect. For many years, scientists have warned (a) that the world is likely to experience some kind of viral pandemic, and (b) that no country would be able to counter such an outbreak unless it closed its borders to international travel until such time as the virus had been eliminated globally. In other words, no amount of lockdown or physical [“social”] distancing is going to work, if the virus can simply return on the next inbound flight.
Governments are under all sorts of conflicting pressures, so their reluctance to follow this logic is, perhaps, understandable. But this interpretation seems vindicated – certainly in Europe, and probably elsewhere – by a sequence in which the re-opening of passenger flights has been followed by “second waves” of infection.
Unless we’re prepared to assume the early development of a vaccine which is effective, safe and trusted by the public, then, it seems prudent to anticipate that the coronavirus is going to turn out to be a process rather than an event. Governments are likely to act when the gravity of the situation compels them to do so, but are equally likely, as soon as the situation eases, to roll back, prematurely, on unpopular policies.
Inferences of process
If we understand the pandemic as ‘a process rather than an event’, certain economic and financial inferences can be drawn from this conclusion. Equally important, though, is the evidence of what we might call a ‘continuity bias’ at work. There is, in a strictly non-political sense, a conservatism which impels organisations and individuals to lean towards continuity, not just in their expectations, but in their decisions, too.
This ‘continuity bias’ opens up a disconnect between perception and reality, and anyone seeking to progress – in the realms of ideas, of politics or of business – can benefit from a recognition of the way in which ‘continuity bias’ creates ‘perception deficiency’.
One aspect of this process is a susceptibility to extrapolation, the assumption that the future must be a continuation of the recent past. If, for example, the price of, or demand for, something has risen by X% over, say, the past ten years, the tendency is to assume that it must rise by a further X% over the next ten years. This extrapolatory assumption can be called ‘the fools’ guideline’, in that it blinds us to the possibility (and, under certain conditions, the probability) of a fundamental change of direction, even when logical examination ought to persuade us that fundamental change is likely.
As regular readers will know, the general thesis followed here is that infinite growth is implausible in an economy governed by a physical energy dynamic. We can, indeed, go further than this. We can (and without being guilty of unjustified extrapolation) compare (a) the trend in the rate at which energy is converted into economic value, with (b) the trend rate at which the ECoE (energy cost of energy) deduction from this value is increasing.
And, since the supply of energy is itself determined by a relationship between value and cost, we can also develop pretty good visibility on future trends in the quantum of energy supply.
What this means is that a per-unit progression of energy value (V minus ECoE) can be applied to a linked projection of quantity (Q) to produce an equation which interprets and predicts trends in the aggregate supply of economic value.
If the present position is termed ‘point zero’, we can then look either forwards (to points +1, +2, +3 and so on) or backwards (points -1, -2, -3). The value of forward visibility will be obvious, but backwards visibility can be of at least equal importance, because it can tell us the extent to which current interpretations of direction and value are mistaken.
If our aim is to identify competitive edge, the best way to do this is likely to involve triangulating (a) accurate fundamental analysis, (b) prevalent false perceptions of current value, and (c) the effects of ‘continuity bias’.
Here’s an example of how, in the near future, such an equation might function.
We know that the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic has involved the provision of support for household and business incomes, together with the deferral of various household and business expenses (such as interest and rent payments). We can put these together mathematically to calculate a progression of fiscal shortfalls, and we can further postulate a point at which this progression becomes critical, requiring, perhaps, state ‘rescues’ of embattled lenders and landlords, and/or central bank money creation to support these initiatives.
This much, though, can be done by anyone, provided he or she has access to the numbers and the methodology required to calculate this progression. Accordingly, it does not, of itself, constitute ‘competitive edge’, other than in relation to those who are unable to carry out these same calculations.
This is where the equation of energy value, false perceptions of value and ‘continuity bias’ comes into play. The person who can calculate a fiscal progression with reasonable accuracy can be led astray by referencing this to a false perception of where the economy really is now, and where it can be expected to go in the future. Competitive edge arises when the background to this progression can be calibrated correctly.
More broadly, the ‘generality’ – governments, businesses, investors and the general public – has perceptions of how the economy has got to where it is and of where it will progress from here, and accepts current valuations imputed by these trends, all of which are mistaken.
These ‘mistaken perceptions of the generality’ define a situation of risk and opportunity. If, for example, you were in business, the ability to draw on accurate interpretation, plus your understanding of others’ extrapolation and ‘continuity bias’, would tell you to invest in certain areas, to divest from others, to buy certain undervalued assets and to sell some overvalued ones, to alter your slate of products and services, and to change your methods and practises in ways recommended by economic and financial knowledge not available to your competitors.
Without, of course, straying into investment specifics, it will be obvious that assets are priced in relation to current appreciations and forward expectations, both of which are founded in these same ‘mistaken perceptions of the generality’.
On the road – theory in practice
From what we might term a ‘top-down’ standpoint, we can observe that a prior belief in ‘a future of more’ has, under pressure of circumstances, segued into ‘a certainty of recovery’. Some examples of this mindset are instructive, not because they are ‘right’, or even because they were ‘wrong before’, but because they ‘remain wrong now’.
Future sales of vehicles are an interesting example. As of 2018, there were 1,130 million cars on the world’s roads, and 236 million commercial vehicles. The consensus view, as of 2019, was that these numbers would, by 2040, have risen to about 1,970 million cars (+74%) and 460 million commercial vehicles (+94%). This view has been maintained despite evidence that sales of both classes of vehicles had started to deteriorate during 2018. The overall perception was (and probably still is) that the numbers of vehicles of all types was set to increase by 1.06 billion units (+77%) by 2040.
Under current, extreme circumstances, of course, sales of cars and commercial vehicles have slumped. Rationally, you might ask (a) whether pre-existing adverse probabilities have been crystallised by the crisis, and (b) whether consensus longer-term expectations are being invalidated.
What seems actually to be happening, though, is that the question has become, not ‘was our prior expectation wrong?’, but ‘how long will it take to get back on track?’. We should be clear that this latter question is based on assumption, not on logic.
Finding the ‘right’ answer to such questions is very far from being purely theoretical. It would have a critical bearing on your current actions and your future plans, if you manufacture vehicles or components, if you supply materials for these processes, or if you’re a government trying to plan forward infrastructure investments. If you’re an environmental campaigner, or an advocate of conversion from internal combustion (ICE) to electric vehicles (EVs), these issues are fundamental to how you frame and conduct your current activities.
Understanding of energy-economic principles would, in this instance, already have told you that ‘77% more vehicles’ was an implausible outcome. That in turn would provide a valid point of reference for the effects of the current crisis.
It would, in other words, give you a competitive edge.
Flying blind – of aviation and technology
A second and a third instance are provided by aviation and technology.
In the former instance, the pre-crisis consensus – welcomed by the industry, disliked by environmentalists, but seemingly accepted by almost everyone, and used as a planning assumption by governments – was that passenger flights would increase by roughly 90% between 2018 and 2040. The coronavirus crisis has inflicted huge damage to the sector, but the ‘continuity bias’ assumption seems now to be that the prior trajectory will be restored, and that a worst-case scenario is the likelihood of a lengthy delay in returning to that prior trajectory.
It seems to be accepted that the duration of a recovery may be protracted, given the unknowns around travel restrictions and customer caution, but it also seems that no consideration is being given to the possibility that the prior (upwards) trajectory might not be restored at all.
A third and final example is provided by the assumption that the future will comprise ever more technology, ranging from more ‘big data’, more AI and more gadgets to self-driving cars and ever-increasing industrial automation. Downturns in sales of smartphones, chips and electronic components, again dating from 2018, seem to have been dismissed as aberrational ‘noise’ around a robustly, indeed an unquestionably upwards trend.
Once again, energy-based interpretation of the economy suggests that this is a combination of ‘continuity bias’ and unquestioned extrapolation, seemingly at very considerable variance from economic probability.
Stated at its simplest, if consumers become poorer, and rebalance their priorities accordingly, whilst businesses emphasise cost control and concentrate on simplification, the balance of probability swings against the assumed future of unending automation.
The ‘improbable’ versus the ‘impossible’
Many more examples could be cited, but let’s finish by applying an acid test to these questions.
If you believe in ‘a future of more’ (more cars, more flights, more automation and so on) – or are persuaded by the theory that we will witness a ‘recovery’ (of whatever duration) back to the prior growth trajectory – then it follows that the economy of the future is going to need more energy than the economy of the present.
On this basis, expert forecasters have projected global primary energy supply rising by 18% between 2019 and 2040, adding roughly 2,500 mmtoe to our annual requirement. The experts think they can find just over 70% of this required increase from a combination of nuclear, hydro and the various forms of renewable energy (RE). This leaves them (and us) needing an extra 720 mmtoe or so from fossil fuel (FF) sources. It’s assumed, not only that this can be found, but that doing so will increase annual emissions of climate-harming CO² from 34.2 million tonnes in 2019 to about 38.4 mmt by 2040.
Meeting the required increment to fossil fuel supply means that, comparing 2040 with 2019, we’ll be using roughly 11% more oil, at least 30% more gas and roughly the same amount of coal. If you look realistically at the state of the FF industries, though, you can see that any such expectations are pretty implausible, not least because the delivery of such gains would require price increases that would move far beyond the affordable.
Here, then, is the conundrum. Meeting assumed economic needs in the future requires quantities of oil, gas and coal whose provision seems implausible. Faced with this, do we conclude (a) that we’ll somehow ‘find a way’ to supply this much additional energy, or (b) that the foundation growth assumption might itself be wrong?
That the experts are wrong about the size of the future economy may seem improbable, but logic suggests that supplying the required amount of additional fossil fuel energy looks very nearly impossible.
In this situation, we could do worse than reflect on the axiom of Sherlock Holmes – “[w]hen you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.