Giles Wilkes
@gilesyb.bsky.social
Former politico, comment writer, spread betting dealer, editor, now think tanker, consultant, former baker of overly dense loaves.
Pinned
Giles Wilkes
@gilesyb.bsky.social
· Jul 15
There really is no getting out of this fiscal corner
It is something of a cliche to argue that Britain is running out of money, living beyond its means, wandering through a fiscal fool’s paradise – but no less true for that. The trend of …
freethinkecon.wordpress.com
In an effort that will no doubt torch my follower base, I have laid out some basic numbers around our fiscal situation. Obvious, but still a little sobering for me.
freethinkecon.wordpress.com/2025/07/15/t...
freethinkecon.wordpress.com/2025/07/15/t...
Reposted by Giles Wilkes
The government have decided to remark in Hansard that 10 million people in Britain use X as their primary news source. A statistic that cannot possibly be true. Probably needs a correction I think.
If there is an argument then this is the argument. But lol I can’t find where this obviously false stat is coming from. And if the government does believe more than half the families in the UK are using it as their primary news source then woah maybe time to up the scrutiny of it!
January 5, 2026 at 8:38 PM
The government have decided to remark in Hansard that 10 million people in Britain use X as their primary news source. A statistic that cannot possibly be true. Probably needs a correction I think.
Reposted by Giles Wilkes
We need to establish an acceptable proper timeline for the late 20th/early 21st C.
* 'Last year' = 2023-2025
* 'A couple of years ago' = after Lockdown
* 'A few years ago' = between 2004 and Lockdown
* 'About ten years ago' = 1994-2014
* 'Last year' = 2023-2025
* 'A couple of years ago' = after Lockdown
* 'A few years ago' = between 2004 and Lockdown
* 'About ten years ago' = 1994-2014
doing a quick lit review and wrote something along the lines of "this was published in 1994 so it is over 20 years old now" and then realised my maths error and did the oblig. crumble into dust.
January 5, 2026 at 2:11 PM
We need to establish an acceptable proper timeline for the late 20th/early 21st C.
* 'Last year' = 2023-2025
* 'A couple of years ago' = after Lockdown
* 'A few years ago' = between 2004 and Lockdown
* 'About ten years ago' = 1994-2014
* 'Last year' = 2023-2025
* 'A couple of years ago' = after Lockdown
* 'A few years ago' = between 2004 and Lockdown
* 'About ten years ago' = 1994-2014
well that throws a spanner in the works
MADURO DENIES U.S. NARCO-TERRORISM ACCUSATIONS, PROCLAIMS INNOCENCE; LAWYER ENTERS NOT-GUILTY PLEA ON ALL CHARGES
January 5, 2026 at 5:23 PM
well that throws a spanner in the works
I guess the two questions on the consumer side of this are:
- how many users
- how much $$ per user.
If they get to Apple Services/Alphabet levels on the second of these, they get $100 per user, many tens of billions of revenue, they do fine. If SNAP levels ($6 per user per year)... less so
- how many users
- how much $$ per user.
If they get to Apple Services/Alphabet levels on the second of these, they get $100 per user, many tens of billions of revenue, they do fine. If SNAP levels ($6 per user per year)... less so
"The boss of one VC firm notes that Openai’s losses are as big as the deficits of many national governments"
www.economist.com/business/202...
Gotta say that, given the ubiquity and ferocity of the competition, and dubiousness of many use cases, I don't understand the bull case for OpenAI
www.economist.com/business/202...
Gotta say that, given the ubiquity and ferocity of the competition, and dubiousness of many use cases, I don't understand the bull case for OpenAI
OpenAI faces a make-or-break year in 2026
One of the fastest-growing companies in history is in a perilous position
www.economist.com
January 5, 2026 at 2:08 PM
I guess the two questions on the consumer side of this are:
- how many users
- how much $$ per user.
If they get to Apple Services/Alphabet levels on the second of these, they get $100 per user, many tens of billions of revenue, they do fine. If SNAP levels ($6 per user per year)... less so
- how many users
- how much $$ per user.
If they get to Apple Services/Alphabet levels on the second of these, they get $100 per user, many tens of billions of revenue, they do fine. If SNAP levels ($6 per user per year)... less so
"The boss of one VC firm notes that Openai’s losses are as big as the deficits of many national governments"
www.economist.com/business/202...
Gotta say that, given the ubiquity and ferocity of the competition, and dubiousness of many use cases, I don't understand the bull case for OpenAI
www.economist.com/business/202...
Gotta say that, given the ubiquity and ferocity of the competition, and dubiousness of many use cases, I don't understand the bull case for OpenAI
OpenAI faces a make-or-break year in 2026
One of the fastest-growing companies in history is in a perilous position
www.economist.com
January 5, 2026 at 10:15 AM
"The boss of one VC firm notes that Openai’s losses are as big as the deficits of many national governments"
www.economist.com/business/202...
Gotta say that, given the ubiquity and ferocity of the competition, and dubiousness of many use cases, I don't understand the bull case for OpenAI
www.economist.com/business/202...
Gotta say that, given the ubiquity and ferocity of the competition, and dubiousness of many use cases, I don't understand the bull case for OpenAI
"The expanded flow of oil revenues would be used to compensate US oil companies and fund Venezuela’s reconstruction. Quite how America’s oil companies could accomplish this without heavy US military protection Trump did not specify."
giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/...
giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/...
Trump now owns Venezuela
The US president has a growing appetite for military adventure
giftarticle.ft.com
January 4, 2026 at 8:17 AM
"The expanded flow of oil revenues would be used to compensate US oil companies and fund Venezuela’s reconstruction. Quite how America’s oil companies could accomplish this without heavy US military protection Trump did not specify."
giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/...
giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/...
Seagulls standing on a lake this morning, because they can
January 4, 2026 at 7:46 AM
Seagulls standing on a lake this morning, because they can
Reposted by Giles Wilkes
Nige I think Russia and China might think: what's ok for you is also ok for me
January 3, 2026 at 10:59 AM
Nige I think Russia and China might think: what's ok for you is also ok for me
Reposted by Giles Wilkes
I don’t see how the World Cup can go ahead when FIFA’s peace prize recipient has attacked another country: hosting the competition in America would be a mockery of the solemn prize, making it an unserious joke.
January 3, 2026 at 8:51 AM
I don’t see how the World Cup can go ahead when FIFA’s peace prize recipient has attacked another country: hosting the competition in America would be a mockery of the solemn prize, making it an unserious joke.
Ten years since this gorgeous photo made us all realise we actually can recognise the composition of perfect artwork when we see it- www.ft.com/content/5932... via @financialtimes.com
The messy art of escapism
Britain’s relationship with alcohol is complicated. It was too simple to heap blame on the young and calculatedly reckless
www.ft.com
January 3, 2026 at 7:41 AM
Ten years since this gorgeous photo made us all realise we actually can recognise the composition of perfect artwork when we see it- www.ft.com/content/5932... via @financialtimes.com
Reposted by Giles Wilkes
Reposted by Giles Wilkes
"We convinced the civil service that we were actually serious about making proper policy trade-offs and standing by them under political pressure... by mistake"
January 2, 2026 at 6:54 PM
"We convinced the civil service that we were actually serious about making proper policy trade-offs and standing by them under political pressure... by mistake"
Actually heard a Labour peer on the radio deploy the words "the civil service tricked the government into cutting winter fuel payments". Excuse generation is reaching new and dizzy heights.
January 2, 2026 at 6:32 PM
Actually heard a Labour peer on the radio deploy the words "the civil service tricked the government into cutting winter fuel payments". Excuse generation is reaching new and dizzy heights.
Reposted by Giles Wilkes
It's also such an easy political win.
Point to Musk donating to far right groups like Rupert Lowe's and his previous support for Reform and say they're being funded by a noncebot.
Point to Musk donating to far right groups like Rupert Lowe's and his previous support for Reform and say they're being funded by a noncebot.
If the British government, and indeed other governments, can’t muster a fast and strong response to Twitter adding a facility enabling users to create and share AI child sexual abuse material then not sure what Musk could ever do that would actually provoke a response.
January 2, 2026 at 2:16 PM
It's also such an easy political win.
Point to Musk donating to far right groups like Rupert Lowe's and his previous support for Reform and say they're being funded by a noncebot.
Point to Musk donating to far right groups like Rupert Lowe's and his previous support for Reform and say they're being funded by a noncebot.
Reposted by Giles Wilkes
Agree with this. A consequence of the fact most people in politics only have experience of small organisations is that they think 'huh, this institution sort has its own soul and patterns of behaviour' is a novel insight unique to the state and not a 'no kidding!' one.
Not to go all third way, but I think you can believe both that public bureaucracies tend to groupthink and stasis AND that political operatives cannot just declare that, shout at them, and imagine this will answer the problems.
The sharply bimodal response to Paul Ovenden's piece represents a real political divide.
Not between right and left.
But between those who think shifting power from politicians to bureaucrats, quangos and courts was right, and those who see it as central to our problems.
Not between right and left.
But between those who think shifting power from politicians to bureaucrats, quangos and courts was right, and those who see it as central to our problems.
January 2, 2026 at 2:49 PM
Agree with this. A consequence of the fact most people in politics only have experience of small organisations is that they think 'huh, this institution sort has its own soul and patterns of behaviour' is a novel insight unique to the state and not a 'no kidding!' one.
It's actually hilarious, the way the agents compulsively provide fake updates and then guiltily apologise for straying from the realm of factual things that have actually happened. Laugh out loud funny
If you're looking for an entertaining podcast, Shell Game by Evan Ratliff, narrating (in season 2) his attempt to build a company from AI agents, is very good. Courtesy @economist.com
The constant fabulation, it's like being injected by pure LinkedIn BS
The constant fabulation, it's like being injected by pure LinkedIn BS
January 2, 2026 at 12:40 PM
It's actually hilarious, the way the agents compulsively provide fake updates and then guiltily apologise for straying from the realm of factual things that have actually happened. Laugh out loud funny
"Openai in particular should beware hubris. One vc says discussion of cash burn is taboo at the firm, even though leaked figures suggest it will incinerate more than $115bn by 2030"
www.economist.com/leaders/2025...
www.economist.com/leaders/2025...
OpenAI’s cash burn will be one of the big bubble questions of 2026
There is a dark side to the model-maker’s stunning growth
www.economist.com
January 2, 2026 at 12:13 PM
"Openai in particular should beware hubris. One vc says discussion of cash burn is taboo at the firm, even though leaked figures suggest it will incinerate more than $115bn by 2030"
www.economist.com/leaders/2025...
www.economist.com/leaders/2025...
Reposted by Giles Wilkes
Great level headed analysis here
"Maddeningly, voters want contradictory things: low prices when they shop, high wages for themselves; not many immigrants but lots of cheap labour; rising house prices when they own and lower ones when their children want to buy"
www.economist.com/leaders/2025...
From The Economist
www.economist.com/leaders/2025...
From The Economist
The truth about affordability
Voters in rich countries are angry about prices. Politicians could make things worse
www.economist.com
January 2, 2026 at 11:43 AM
Great level headed analysis here
Over the last 15 years I've logged 2500+ runs, and my left knee is beginning to feel it, so by New Year's Resolutions include an attempt to try other exercise a little more. Like hopping.
January 2, 2026 at 11:46 AM
Over the last 15 years I've logged 2500+ runs, and my left knee is beginning to feel it, so by New Year's Resolutions include an attempt to try other exercise a little more. Like hopping.
Genuinely interesting article that correctly isolates the affordability problem as largely one about Baumol cost disease and the issue of positional goods generating zero sum battles in a world of higher wealth inequality. Great stuff
"Maddeningly, voters want contradictory things: low prices when they shop, high wages for themselves; not many immigrants but lots of cheap labour; rising house prices when they own and lower ones when their children want to buy"
www.economist.com/leaders/2025...
From The Economist
www.economist.com/leaders/2025...
From The Economist
The truth about affordability
Voters in rich countries are angry about prices. Politicians could make things worse
www.economist.com
January 2, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Genuinely interesting article that correctly isolates the affordability problem as largely one about Baumol cost disease and the issue of positional goods generating zero sum battles in a world of higher wealth inequality. Great stuff
"Maddeningly, voters want contradictory things: low prices when they shop, high wages for themselves; not many immigrants but lots of cheap labour; rising house prices when they own and lower ones when their children want to buy"
www.economist.com/leaders/2025...
From The Economist
www.economist.com/leaders/2025...
From The Economist
The truth about affordability
Voters in rich countries are angry about prices. Politicians could make things worse
www.economist.com
January 2, 2026 at 11:26 AM
"Maddeningly, voters want contradictory things: low prices when they shop, high wages for themselves; not many immigrants but lots of cheap labour; rising house prices when they own and lower ones when their children want to buy"
www.economist.com/leaders/2025...
From The Economist
www.economist.com/leaders/2025...
From The Economist
Reposted by Giles Wilkes
Season 1 was fab. Do thanks for the alert!
January 2, 2026 at 11:05 AM
Season 1 was fab. Do thanks for the alert!
If you're looking for an entertaining podcast, Shell Game by Evan Ratliff, narrating (in season 2) his attempt to build a company from AI agents, is very good. Courtesy @economist.com
The constant fabulation, it's like being injected by pure LinkedIn BS
The constant fabulation, it's like being injected by pure LinkedIn BS
January 2, 2026 at 10:46 AM
If you're looking for an entertaining podcast, Shell Game by Evan Ratliff, narrating (in season 2) his attempt to build a company from AI agents, is very good. Courtesy @economist.com
The constant fabulation, it's like being injected by pure LinkedIn BS
The constant fabulation, it's like being injected by pure LinkedIn BS
Reposted by Giles Wilkes
I like the "stiffened spine"/"renewed purpose"/"leave no stone unturned" stuff the best.
As it very much implies: "Yeah we weren't really giving it 100% at this government thing, sorry about that."
As it very much implies: "Yeah we weren't really giving it 100% at this government thing, sorry about that."
January 2, 2026 at 10:01 AM
I like the "stiffened spine"/"renewed purpose"/"leave no stone unturned" stuff the best.
As it very much implies: "Yeah we weren't really giving it 100% at this government thing, sorry about that."
As it very much implies: "Yeah we weren't really giving it 100% at this government thing, sorry about that."
Reposted by Giles Wilkes
If China moved to a more consumer driven model, their demographic cliff would make it less effective. When the U.S. was the manufacturing powerhouse, it also had the Baby Boom to drive consumption.
January 2, 2026 at 10:19 AM
If China moved to a more consumer driven model, their demographic cliff would make it less effective. When the U.S. was the manufacturing powerhouse, it also had the Baby Boom to drive consumption.