One thing that I do not do on this blog is provide investment advice. And this post is certainly not that. But here's an idea and thought exercise that relates to urban mobility. Let's assume you own a personal vehicle that is currently valued at US$30k, and that this car is what you use to go about your daily life. Now imagine that you sold this car today, harvested all of the proceeds, and invested them into the following three companies: Uber, Alphabet, and Tesla. If you did this equally, your US$30k would end up as the following (based on today's share prices and if rounded down):
111 shares in Uber ($89.56/share)
49 shares in Alphabet ($201.42/share)
30 shares in Tesla ($329.68/share)
Then, instead of driving yourself around, you'd put the money that you would have normally spent on insurance, gas, and maintenance toward Ubers and Waymos (assuming Waymo is available in your city). Perhaps you even own a parking spot that could be rented out for an extra few hundred dollars each month. Whatever the specifics, let's just assume that what you used to spend to operate and service your car is now being spent on getting around using ride sharing services. It's a wash. So the only difference is that instead of having US$30k tied up in a depreciating asset, you're now part owner of the above three businesses.
This, once again, is not investment advice. I personally don't know how to make sense of Tesla's current valuation. There's a hell of a lot of optimism being priced in. I'm simply picking these three companies as a way to bet on Waymo's autonomous vehicle program (which is currently in the lead), Tesla's robotaxi promises (which, who knows, could actually materialize), and the fact that Uber might still remain the dominant marketplace for rides (though there's already evidence that Waymo is on track to overtake Uber in San Francisco within the next ~8 months).
It's not clear who will be the primary beneficiary of this shifting mobility landscape. Is Tesla right about LiDAR not being necessary? Will human drivers (and therefore Uber) still be needed to manage peak demand loads? Is the asset-heavy approach of owning AV fleets the wrong way to go about things for Waymo? I think it all remains to be seen. But I also think it's clear that autonomous vehicles have arrived and that urban mobility is changing right now, as we speak.
So I think there's a relatively high probability that everyone who owns a personal vehicle would be better off if they did what I am suggesting in this not-investment-advice-don't-do-what-I-write blog post. In other words, if we freed ourselves of the old ways and made some bets on the future. And that's ultimately the purpose of this post. It's so that you and I can come back to it on August 10th, 2030, and see how I did with my prediction. The reminder has been set.
Cover photo by Artur Aldyrkhanov on Unsplash

The above charts — taken from a recent Financial Times article by John Burn-Murdoch called "The troubling decline in conscientiousness" — should be viewed as alarming. For some of our key personality traits, it is showing a decline in extroversion for all age groups, a decline in agreeableness (except for the 60+ crowd), a spike in neuroticism (again, except for the 60+ crowd), and a massive decline in conscientiousness, particularly for young people aged 16-39.
Why does this matter?
Well, according to Burn-Murdoch's article (tweet summary here), the two strongest predictors for overall life success are conscientiousness and neuroticism. These traits are more important than a person's socio-economic background and raw cognitive abilities. They predict career success, the likelihood of getting a divorce, health and life expectancy, financial stability, and more.
Conscientiousness is defined as "the quality of wishing to do one's work or duty well and thoroughly." But simply speaking, conscientious people tend to dependable, disciplined, and committed. They are careful and deliberate, rather than careless and impulsive.
Neuroticism, on the other hand, is generally defined around emotional reactivity. Psychologists define it in terms of the degree that someone is prone to things like anxiety, self-doubt, and sadness. Someone with high neuroticism might, for example, feel easily stressed, worry excessively, and/or dwell on past mistakes. This trait predicts outcomes that run in the opposite direction of conscientiousness: lower career satisfaction, higher divorce rates, reduced life expectancy, and so on. It can also heighten risk perception, which makes neurotic people more likely to overlook potential opportunities.
So once again, it is alarming that these two traits are shifting meaningfully in the wrong directions for young people. Burn-Murdoch puts at least part of the blame on our hyper-connected and high-distraction digital lives. He also hypothesizes that AI could exacerbate this problem. If you're a high conscientious person you might use LLMs to supercharge your abilities; whereas if you're a low conscientious person you might use them to further check out.
The good news is that these traits can be trained. We are all products of our habits and environments. And I'm finding it personally helpful to even just write about these findings. It is also reminding me of a good friend of mine from grad school who used to always espouse something that he liked to call "casual intensity." His thinking was that you need to be on top of things and get shit done. But don't stress about it. Be confident in your abilities.
I think that's a good way to try and approach things.

At the risk of sounding obvious, pricing is fundamental to the functioning of markets. It determines profitability, it allocates resources, and it influences customer behavior, among other things. Take the example of electricity pricing.
In Ontario, we use something called time-of-use (TOU) pricing. What that means is that electricity rates vary according to the time of the day and the time of the year. In the summer, the expensive peak usage period is the afternoon (because of air conditioning) and in the winter it's the morning and early evening (because of heating and lighting when people are generally not at work).
What this pricing strategy does is incentivize customers to change their consumption behaviours. Instead of doing laundry during a peak period, maybe you set a timer and have it run during a low-peak period. In other words, it helps to flatten the demand curve. This is valuable for utility providers because peak periods are more expensive to supply and they also create the risk of brownouts and blackouts. So you worry about peak demand.
With this in mind, let's now switch and talk about highway congestion. The parallels are almost identical, and yet, most highways are free to use, which means we do absolutely nothing to manage peak demand. Instead, we encourage the equivalent of brownouts where demand greatly exceeds supply, traffic crawls, and roads become practically unusable. Why is that? Why should highways be viewed any differently?
In the case of highways, there are even alternatives such as transit (thought not always, of course). But if you need electricity from a monopolistic utility provider, you're paying whatever rates they charge. As you might expect, the answer is not technical or economic. We know with 100% certainty that pricing congestion will reduce it. The reason we don't do it is political. Free roads are preferred to functioning roads.
Cover photo by Hooman R. on
One thing that I do not do on this blog is provide investment advice. And this post is certainly not that. But here's an idea and thought exercise that relates to urban mobility. Let's assume you own a personal vehicle that is currently valued at US$30k, and that this car is what you use to go about your daily life. Now imagine that you sold this car today, harvested all of the proceeds, and invested them into the following three companies: Uber, Alphabet, and Tesla. If you did this equally, your US$30k would end up as the following (based on today's share prices and if rounded down):
111 shares in Uber ($89.56/share)
49 shares in Alphabet ($201.42/share)
30 shares in Tesla ($329.68/share)
Then, instead of driving yourself around, you'd put the money that you would have normally spent on insurance, gas, and maintenance toward Ubers and Waymos (assuming Waymo is available in your city). Perhaps you even own a parking spot that could be rented out for an extra few hundred dollars each month. Whatever the specifics, let's just assume that what you used to spend to operate and service your car is now being spent on getting around using ride sharing services. It's a wash. So the only difference is that instead of having US$30k tied up in a depreciating asset, you're now part owner of the above three businesses.
This, once again, is not investment advice. I personally don't know how to make sense of Tesla's current valuation. There's a hell of a lot of optimism being priced in. I'm simply picking these three companies as a way to bet on Waymo's autonomous vehicle program (which is currently in the lead), Tesla's robotaxi promises (which, who knows, could actually materialize), and the fact that Uber might still remain the dominant marketplace for rides (though there's already evidence that Waymo is on track to overtake Uber in San Francisco within the next ~8 months).
It's not clear who will be the primary beneficiary of this shifting mobility landscape. Is Tesla right about LiDAR not being necessary? Will human drivers (and therefore Uber) still be needed to manage peak demand loads? Is the asset-heavy approach of owning AV fleets the wrong way to go about things for Waymo? I think it all remains to be seen. But I also think it's clear that autonomous vehicles have arrived and that urban mobility is changing right now, as we speak.
So I think there's a relatively high probability that everyone who owns a personal vehicle would be better off if they did what I am suggesting in this not-investment-advice-don't-do-what-I-write blog post. In other words, if we freed ourselves of the old ways and made some bets on the future. And that's ultimately the purpose of this post. It's so that you and I can come back to it on August 10th, 2030, and see how I did with my prediction. The reminder has been set.
Cover photo by Artur Aldyrkhanov on Unsplash

The above charts — taken from a recent Financial Times article by John Burn-Murdoch called "The troubling decline in conscientiousness" — should be viewed as alarming. For some of our key personality traits, it is showing a decline in extroversion for all age groups, a decline in agreeableness (except for the 60+ crowd), a spike in neuroticism (again, except for the 60+ crowd), and a massive decline in conscientiousness, particularly for young people aged 16-39.
Why does this matter?
Well, according to Burn-Murdoch's article (tweet summary here), the two strongest predictors for overall life success are conscientiousness and neuroticism. These traits are more important than a person's socio-economic background and raw cognitive abilities. They predict career success, the likelihood of getting a divorce, health and life expectancy, financial stability, and more.
Conscientiousness is defined as "the quality of wishing to do one's work or duty well and thoroughly." But simply speaking, conscientious people tend to dependable, disciplined, and committed. They are careful and deliberate, rather than careless and impulsive.
Neuroticism, on the other hand, is generally defined around emotional reactivity. Psychologists define it in terms of the degree that someone is prone to things like anxiety, self-doubt, and sadness. Someone with high neuroticism might, for example, feel easily stressed, worry excessively, and/or dwell on past mistakes. This trait predicts outcomes that run in the opposite direction of conscientiousness: lower career satisfaction, higher divorce rates, reduced life expectancy, and so on. It can also heighten risk perception, which makes neurotic people more likely to overlook potential opportunities.
So once again, it is alarming that these two traits are shifting meaningfully in the wrong directions for young people. Burn-Murdoch puts at least part of the blame on our hyper-connected and high-distraction digital lives. He also hypothesizes that AI could exacerbate this problem. If you're a high conscientious person you might use LLMs to supercharge your abilities; whereas if you're a low conscientious person you might use them to further check out.
The good news is that these traits can be trained. We are all products of our habits and environments. And I'm finding it personally helpful to even just write about these findings. It is also reminding me of a good friend of mine from grad school who used to always espouse something that he liked to call "casual intensity." His thinking was that you need to be on top of things and get shit done. But don't stress about it. Be confident in your abilities.
I think that's a good way to try and approach things.

At the risk of sounding obvious, pricing is fundamental to the functioning of markets. It determines profitability, it allocates resources, and it influences customer behavior, among other things. Take the example of electricity pricing.
In Ontario, we use something called time-of-use (TOU) pricing. What that means is that electricity rates vary according to the time of the day and the time of the year. In the summer, the expensive peak usage period is the afternoon (because of air conditioning) and in the winter it's the morning and early evening (because of heating and lighting when people are generally not at work).
What this pricing strategy does is incentivize customers to change their consumption behaviours. Instead of doing laundry during a peak period, maybe you set a timer and have it run during a low-peak period. In other words, it helps to flatten the demand curve. This is valuable for utility providers because peak periods are more expensive to supply and they also create the risk of brownouts and blackouts. So you worry about peak demand.
With this in mind, let's now switch and talk about highway congestion. The parallels are almost identical, and yet, most highways are free to use, which means we do absolutely nothing to manage peak demand. Instead, we encourage the equivalent of brownouts where demand greatly exceeds supply, traffic crawls, and roads become practically unusable. Why is that? Why should highways be viewed any differently?
In the case of highways, there are even alternatives such as transit (thought not always, of course). But if you need electricity from a monopolistic utility provider, you're paying whatever rates they charge. As you might expect, the answer is not technical or economic. We know with 100% certainty that pricing congestion will reduce it. The reason we don't do it is political. Free roads are preferred to functioning roads.
Cover photo by Hooman R. on
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog