397. The Time-Wasting Economy

Trying to contact a bank, energy company, telephone provider or government department can consume much of a morning. The telephone menu offers numerous options, but rarely the one that is needed. Customers listen to music, repeat security information and explain the same problem to several different people. Sometimes the call is disconnected and the whole process must begin again.

Online services are presented as quicker and more efficient. They may be convenient for straightforward transactions, but they become frustrating when something goes wrong. Passwords are forgotten, security codes fail to arrive and automated systems cannot understand an unusual problem. People without smartphones are increasingly excluded.

This is particularly difficult for older and disabled people. Someone with limited mobility may be unable to reach the telephone quickly. A person with poor hearing may struggle with recorded instructions. Others may find small screens, complicated passwords and rapidly changing technology difficult to use.

The customer’s time is treated as though it has no value. A bank may save money by closing branches and reducing staff, but its costs have merely been transferred to its customers. Thousands of people spend millions of hours trying to complete tasks which once required a short conversation across a counter.

Centralisation has separated organisations from the people they serve. Decisions are made in distant offices. Calls are handled by national centres whose staff may know nothing about the customer or the locality. Responsibility is divided between departments, contractors and computer systems. Everyone follows the procedure, but nobody appears able to solve the problem.

Localism could reverse this.

A local bank or service office would not need to reproduce every function of a large organisation. It could provide a real person who could identify the problem, verify the customer and contact the correct department. Several essential services might share the same local office. Banking, energy, water, council services and benefits advice could all be made accessible through a familiar point of contact.

Local staff would gradually get to know the people they served. They would understand that an elderly customer had no smartphone, that another had hearing difficulties, or that someone with limited mobility needed longer to answer the telephone. Such knowledge would reduce repeated explanations and unnecessary security procedures.

Local accountability would also matter. It is much harder to ignore poor service when the organisation is visible within the locality. Customers would know where to go, whom to speak to and how to pursue a complaint. Staff would have names rather than employee numbers.

Not every service can be completely local. Banks will still require national computer systems, specialist departments and regulation. The important change would be to place a human local layer between large systems and the people who depend upon them.

Efficiency should not be measured only by how many branches are closed or how few employees remain. It should include the time, anxiety and inconvenience imposed upon the public. A system which saves an organisation five minutes but wastes an hour of a customer’s time is not efficient. It has simply moved the burden.

Localism would restore something increasingly absent from modern life: the ability to speak to a responsible person who understands the problem and has the authority to help. That would save time, reduce frustration and make essential services more humane.

391. The Demise of Convenience

What’s sold as convenience collapses into something that no longer qualifies as convenience.

Charles Hugh Smith

This is essay #14 in the series The Revolution No One Sees Coming.

Convenience is the beating heart of Modernism and Progress: Progress is defined by everyday life becoming easier via new conveniences, which are the acme of Modernism: new is better because it’s novel and adds convenience, which is a mix of reduced time and effort to get what we want / need.

So the supermarket is more convenient than having to walk around the neighborhood to a half-dozen specialty shops. The frozen pizza is convenient because we no longer have to laboriously mix the dough, stretch it into the pizza pan, prepare a sauce, slice the vegetable and meat toppings, grate the cheese, etc.

The private vehicle is more convenient than having to wait for a bus and walking to our destination.

Online shopping is convenient because we don’t even have to leave our desk to get stuff delivered to our door.

The Demise of Convenience is a subtle, complicated dynamic which is not as easy to grasp as the easy-to-see conveniences described above.

Let’s start with a truth that’s invisible to most of us: convenience is extremely expensive to provide and maintain. Everything that provides convenience demands extraordinary quantities of energy, physical plant, machinery, expertise, management and complex global supply chains.

Convenience is the result of adding complexity and cost on a vast scale. Scaling up the global system that generates convenience lowers the cost per unit, but taken as a whole, the system is extraordinarily resource-capital-labor intensive.

Consider the supermarket versus the neighborhood small specialty shops. The supermarket is a gigantic space that must be heated / cooled, and is the “last mile” of a massive global supply chain network bringing goods from around the world via container ships, aircraft and diesel trucks. It requires a large staff and exacting management to offer convenience.

If the staffing is cut to reduce costs, convenience suffers: we can’t find anyone to help us. (See links on understaffing below.)

There’s a small shop we frequent that doesn’t even turn on interior lighting; why bother if there’s enough light to see what’s on the shelves from the windows? Some neighborhood shops rely on global supply chains, of course, but many subsist on local suppliers.

One of our neighbors has a part-time job delivering locally made food products (kimchee, etc.) to local retailers in the early morning hours with his car. The network required to operate this food preparation and delivery is far less intensive that the complex mega-factory that makes the frozen pizzas, the refrigerated trucks moving the pizzas thousands of miles, the freezer-warehouses for storing the pizzas between transits, and the freezer cases in the supermarket where the pizzas sit for days or weeks until a customer buys them.

Moving to the digital realm, consider the convenience of autopay, a standard form of technological convenience. Rather than having to remember to pay bills, we set up autopay and our bills are paid on time without our having to pay attention and manually transact the payment.

I switched the credit card in my healthcare insurance autopay, deleting the old card from their system, leaving the one new credit card on file. This eliminated any confusion over which card to bill. I anticipated a seamless transition to the new credit card.

Instead, I received an email from the insurer notifying me that my payment had failed because they’d continued trying to bill the card that had been removed from their system weeks ago.

I called customer service, was offered three AI-bot options that did not address my problem, and asked for a “representative.”

The human representative could not explain the system failure other than a vague reference to work being done on corporate software systems, nor could she guarantee the same problem won’t occur next month.

This is not an added convenience. It is an added uncertainty that requires monitoring. That isn’t convenience.

Now that AI-powered hacking is being unleashed globally, digital networks are being compromised on a vast and ever-expanding scale. In response, we’re being nagged to adopt a “passkey” security system. Oops, it turns out that passkeys can be lifted unencrypted from browsers. So much for that security solution.

Many sites now require entering new passwords on a regular basis. Others nag us to adopt multi-factor security, so every login requires entering a security number from our phone.

Compared to the good old days of the early Internet, these are not improvements in convenience, they’re significant increases in unpaid shadow-work, a marked decline in convenience, i.e. Anti-Progress.

The range of stuff that can be bought online is so broad that it fosters the illusion that we can buy everything online, so if local suppliers close down it has no impact on our convenience.

But some things that require labor or specialty equipment / parts are not available online, and when the local supplier closes down due to exorbitant rent increases or the owners aging out / retiring, that hole isn’t going to be filled by online orders.

While we’re considering online purchases, let’s ask if dynamic pricing is a convenience or an extortion. Dynamic pricing is when the price changes as the retailer’s profit-maximizing algorithms collect data about us from myriad sources (social media, search, previous purchases, income and credit scores, etc.) and then jack up the price to whatever the probabilistic algorithms reckon are the maximum we might pay, increasing the profit margins without offering any improvement in quality.

This is not an increase in convenience, it’s an extortion process powered by data collected about us.

Returning to local shops closing down as the owners retire: it’s difficult to find younger people willing to work long hours in marginal, demanding small businesses.

CHS NOTE: the Revolution No One Sees Coming will not just be a series of external events, it will be personal, as each of us will face situations we didn’t choose whose novelty and scale may exceed our previous experience. History is full of changes no one thought possible a few years earlier. No one else is writing about it like I am, so a subscription–which costs the same as a few sushi–is a unique value. Thank you for supporting my work, I would say to heck with it if it wasn’t for you. …

 LikeCommentRestack © 2026 Charles Hugh Smith
P.O. Box 10847, Hilo HI 96721
UnsubscribeGet the appStart writing

361. The Bank of England Governor has urged the incoming Prime Minister to focus on one issue above all others

The Governor of the Bank of England has delivered a stark warning as Andy Burnham prepares to take office.

Speaking to MPs, Andrew Bailey said the UK’s biggest economic challenge cannot be ignored.

Mr Bailey said the country’s weak economic growth should be the new Government’s top priority, warning Britain has struggled to grow its economy for almost two decades.

Appearing before the Treasury Committee, he said: “The overall message I would give is that I think the big issue is growth in the economy.”

Mr Bailey said the UK’s weak growth has persisted for around 16 to 17 years and stressed it is a long-term problem rather than the fault of any one Government.

“So this is not a story about any one government… but I think it’s important because a critical structural issue,” he told MPs.

Andy Burnham is on course to become Britain’s next Prime Minister as early as next week after securing the backing of more than 85 per cent of Labour MPs.

The Bank of England’s comments come ahead of the latest economic figures from the Office for National Statistics, due to be released on Thursday.

If confirmed, it would mark the second consecutive monthly contraction after the economy also shrank by 0.1 per cent in April, the first monthly decline since August last year.

Before that, the economy grew by 0.3 per cent in March and 0.4 per cent in February.

The April decline was driven by the services sector, which makes up the largest part of the UK economy, despite growth in construction and manufacturing.

The conflict between the US, Israel and Iran continues to weigh heavily on Britain’s economy through persistently high fuel and energy costs.

These elevated prices squeezed both businesses and households throughout April and May, though wholesale costs have eased somewhat in recent weeks.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves acknowledged the domestic fallout, stating: “It was not a war we wanted or joined, but one that will have an impact at home.”

Government ministers have cautioned that economic repercussions from the Iran conflict could linger for eight months beyond any ceasefire.

Food industry figures have also warned that supermarket prices could surge by up to 10 per cent later this year as the war’s inflationary effects filter through.

Mr Bailey emphasised that economic expansion cannot occur without a stable financial system, responding to questions about whether regulatory frameworks might be hampering growth.

“We will not get growth if we don’t have financial stability,” the Governor told the committee, while noting signs of resilience within the financial sector.

Despite the gloomy outlook, some economists identified potential bright spots.

158. The Moral Decay of Debt

Debt has moral implications, and in denying this, we’re choosing a rendezvous with Nemesis

Charles Hugh Smith – Sep 17

Let’s start with a household analogy. A married couple have four fine children, and since expenses are higher than income, they borrow money in their children’s’ names to fund their lifestyle and investments. Once the offspring reach 18 years of age, the debt their parents borrowed is theirs to service.

The offspring didn’t get a say in how much money was borrowed or how it was spent, but the debt is now theirs to service (i.e. pay the interest) for their entire lifetimes, as the debt is simply too large to pay off with conventional wages.

The economy changed, and since wages don’t go as far and costs keep rising, the four offspring borrow in their own children’s’ names to afford the basics of a middle-class life.

The parents are now comfortably retired, drawing on their investments bought with borrowed money. The two generations behind them are now debt-serfs who funded their own lifestyles by borrowing even more money. Since the kind of house their parents bought for 3-times-income is now 6-times-income, the debt required to own a house and fund what is considered the minimum middle-class entitlements is multiples of their parents’ borrowing.

Is anyone willing to call this offloading of ever-expanding debt onto future generations wrong, as in morally wrong, or have we lost the vocabulary and ability to declare the offloading of debt as morally disgraceful, a line that should never have been crossed?

Debt that cannot be extinguished and that is offloaded onto future generations is a manifestation of moral decay, a decay of the moral foundations of the economy and society that is terminal.

So here we are, cheering on a big reduction in the Fed Funds Rate to encourage an expansion of debt, as more debt means more spending and that means more taxes and corporate profits. The manipulation of interest rates and the financial machinery to encourage more debt is viewed as bloodless, absolutely devoid of moral judgment: when it comes to “growth” of asset prices, spending, taxes and profits, there is no wrong, as “growth” is the only good anyone cares about.

This is the perfection of moral decay. Offloading debt onto future generations–money borrowed to prop up a self-serving status quo that focused on expediencies, not future consequences–and then telling the debt-enslaved generations, “we’ll inflate away the debt, and your wages will buy less and less, but no worries, we’ll just borrow more to pay the interest due”–how is this not morally repulsive?

Here is Federal debt as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This is a better measure of consequences, for it illustrates the Federal government’s ability to counter a deep recession by borrowing and spending trillions of dollars is now limited by extreme debt levels.

Those who track the history of government debt generally draw the red-line at 100% of GDP, so 120% is already deep in the danger zone. History is rather decisive: any attempt to add trillions in additional debt at these levels has zero chance of working as intended, i.e. a pain-free way to boost “growth.”

Note the debt-to-GDP ratio actually declined during both the stagflationary 1970s and the 1990s Internet boom. In both eras, the economy was still largely organic, i.e. unmanipulated enough that natural forces (supply, demand, risk aversion, writedowns of bad debt, etc.) could work through excesses of speculation and debt and restore not just balance sheets but legitimacy.

The Federal Reserve no longer trusted the system’s self-correcting capacity and leaped into full-blown manipulation of financial and mortgage markets in 2008-09. The debt-to-FDP ratio soared from 60% to 100% in the post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) “save” of the Federal Reserve, which inflated the money supply and pushed ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) and QE (quantitative easing) to boost borrowing.

As a result, private-sector borrowing also skyrocketed. Now that households and enterprises have borrowed up to their capacity to service debt, their ability to “borrow their way to prosperity” is also constrained.

Here is total debt, public and private (TCMDO). In Q2 1975, total debt was $2.5 trillion. If this had tracked inflation, it would have reached $15 trillion by Q2 2025. ($1 in Q2 1975 is $6 in Q2 2025.) (BLS Inflation Calculator)

Let’s say that debt can double the rate of inflation if it’s being invested productively. That would put today’s total debt at $30 trillion.

But total debt isn’t close to $30 trillion; it’s $104 trillion and climbing, suggesting 70+ trillion is “excess debt.” As for all this borrowed money being invested productively–given “waste is growth” planned obsolescence and rampant asset appreciation / speculation, it seems obvious that most of this borrowed money was consumed by ephemeral products and services or squandered chasing asset bubbles.

Debt has implicit moral implications, and in denying this, we’re choosing a rendezvous with Nemesis–a rendezvous with Destiny that will be arranged by Nemesis, not the Federal Reserve or the Treasury.

Yes, debt can be productive, but it can also be exploitive, and therein lies the moral implications. Debt can never be amoral or bloodless; its moral nature cannot be extinguished. We appear to be destined to discover this truth the hard way.

134. Big Numbers

I seem to be in another world from that of the present government. Maybe this will help.

According to the Daily Telegraph:

The Chancellor’s £9.9bn of fiscal headroom left in her Spring Statement will be wiped out if the Bill is defeated in a Commons vote on Tuesday. (today)

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the cumulative saving of the changes to both incapacity benefits and disability benefits will total £13.7bn by 2029-30. Of that, some £9.2bn would stem from cuts to personal independence payments, known as Pip.

According to ChatGPT:

Every year, the UK spends approximately £50 billion on transport: roughly £31 billion subsidising public transport (mostly rail) and another £18–20 billion on maintaining and expanding roads. In contrast, the NHS now costs over £180 billion annually.

What does this say about our priorities? In truth, it reflects an economy still wedded to the idea of long-distance movement – daily commuting, cross-country freight, massive infrastructure projects designed to tie the nation together. But the ground beneath this model is shifting. The shrinking economy, rising energy costs, ageing populations, and the climate crisis all point toward a future where people travel less, and more of life happens locally.

If we break it down, perhaps £35–40 billion of the £50 billion transport budget is allocated to sustaining long-distance networks – including national rail, trunk roads, high-speed projects, and intercity bus corridors. Only about £10–15 billion truly supports local transport: the buses, small roads, footpaths, cycle lanes, and concessionary travel schemes that keep communities connected.

Localism is the practical response to the end of cheap fossil-fuelled mobility. Rather than building trunk and primary roads, funded by the State, and subsidising national rail systems, spending would be focused on neighbourhood bus routes, maintaining village roads, improving walking infrastructure, and ensuring every town has safe paths to schools and shops.

In short, we could spend less on moving people further, and more on making life easier closer to home. The benefits would flow not just to those who travel less, but to society as a whole: more resilient communities, reduced emissions, and stronger local economies.

The challenge now shouldn’t be on building giant rail projects. It’s how to spend that money where it matters – on the doorsteps and streets where real life happens.

62. Banks Unwilling To Finance $5 Trillion Global Nuclear Development

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Banks-Unwilling-To-Finance-5-Trillion-Global-Nuclear-Development.html

“The project risks, as we have seen in reality, seem to be very high,” said European Investment Bank Vice President Thomas Ostros, adding that countries need to focus more on renewables and energy efficiency. Ines Rocha, a director at the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, and Fernando Cubillos, a banker at the Development Bank of Latin America, concurred, saying their lending priorities lean toward renewables and transmission grids. “Nuclear comes last,” Cubillos said.”

Is this the start of the central banks realising that economic growth is no longer possible?