if Trump administration so keen on innovation & "building", why trash research organization like National Science Foundation & National Institutes of Health???
It's strange to read a speech and about the importance and value of labor and how great it's all going to be while the administration you lead so openly treats workers like garbage. The treatment of federal workers is just one example, where they've been razed with such rabid ferocity and pointless destructiveness--there is an actual art to downsizing--and these are not the workers who hounded Trump for years at the CIA and FBI, et al. They're just tens of thousands doing work that most people rely on, and not making tons of money either. The singular aspect that we've seen from this administration so far is simply a boundless expression of overreaching anger, and I think Oren is diminishing himself in imagining that it's all in service of building something. I increasingly don't see that--aside from rhetoric of 'it's going to be great' there's virtually no evidence of it--and I was similarly hopeful that Trump would be a force for some kind of necessary rethinking.
What's happening to universities and immigration and free speech will not in any way lead to American innovation of any kind. Just the reverse. People are already thinking about whether they should come here, and those here who aren't citizens (and even some who are) are looking anxiously elsewhere.
I love Oren and appreciate his clarity and willingness to challenge tired orthodoxies. He's completely refreshing. But I suspect he's going to find himself increasingly wondering whether this administration really represents anything new or geniuinely exciting, or just a more militant, corrupt, and intolerant version of late-stage capitalism.
We have an entrenched federal bureaucracy and consulting class in DC. I find it highly amusing you think they innocently exist and haven’t done everything possible to insulate themselves from accountability. To act as if one just needs to perform artful downsizing and thay will go well is very naive. I’m not a huge fan of the burn it all down approach, but the one thing it has going for it is the possibility something effective is achieved, even if unartful.
Isn’t that same pope that just reprimanded JD over “ordo amoris” and Don’s deportation policies? I’m sorry, I can’t take the guy seriously. His self-gelding on his views on Don says all you need to know about his character and convictions. He was right in his first analysis… To say nothing of the Haitian fiasco, and his gaslighting of poor North Carolina residents after their horrific floods. What kind of human lies openly to poor people who have lost everything?
While I am making the obvious faux pas of commenting on something I have not read (his speech is now in an open to read tab, I promise!), I am curious for those who have if JD Vance defines what "real innovation" is and what it is not? I wonder if real innovation is actually of benefit to everyone (or if there even is such an easily definable thing). If I were an owner of a corporation that employed cheap labor and that suddenly evaporated, I can easily imagine taking steps to automate a fair chunk of the work done by humans where possible. I presume that has upsides and downsides, but if it cut costs and increased profit, I would likely presume it to be a worthy, and dare I say it real innovation, at least for me and my class.
Thank you very much for this list of recommended articles. There’s several that I know I will definitely read, starting with Vance’s speech. Cheap labor and cheap stuff came at a huge cost.
By the way, I comment on a thread of one of my old college professors, and I often cite your articles when I disagree with something he has written about economics. I majored in English, so he and his professor friends are definitely liberal.
He doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with cheap stuff, and he definitely blew a gasket when I posted your Wall Street Journal article defending Trump’s tariffs. Anyway, I’m proud to be one of your earliest readers.
After recently re-reading Peter Thiel’s “Zero to One” book, I think a book needs to be written as a reply and the title would be “One to 100”. When you look at all of the big startup successes he talks about, they all share two key attributes. The first is that they went big when there was cheap money (after 2008 GFC). The second attribute is that (aside from Amazon), if they disappeared tomorrow, who would care (outside of the people with a financial interest). Just imagine a week without Facebook/Instagram, Twitter, Tesla, PayPal. The sun would still come up and cars would work.
After recently re-reading Peter Thiel’s “Zero to One” book, I think a book needs to be written as a reply and the title would be “One to 100”. It would cover the bulk of the world’s economic activities that are not startup related. When you look at all of the big startup successes he talks about, they all share two key attributes. The first is that they went big when there was cheap money (after 2008 GFC). The second attribute is that (aside from Amazon), if they disappeared tomorrow, who would care (outside of the people with a financial interest). Just imagine a week without Facebook/Instagram, Twitter, Tesla, PayPal. The sun would still come up and cars would work.
“And the solution, I believe, is American innovation because, in the long run, it’s technology that increases the value of labor.”
That little clause, “in the long run”, is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
I agree 1000% with Vance’s optimistic take on the impact of tech EVENTUALLY. But having lived through a couple of these tech innovation cycles now (first, the advent of personal computing, then the internet/social media) it seems to me that human societies can only cope with so much change so fast.
The industrial revolution played out over more than a century – multiple human generations. We coped, after a fashion, although it gave rise to some pretty bad ideas and social movements that had to be put down (Communism, anyone?).
The “info revolution” happened more quickly – generously, 40 years from the decentralization of computing to now. It’s wrought a fair bit of social instability that is still playing out. Not just automation, but globalization itself is a consequence of “the world getting smaller” as a consequence of rapid advance in information technologies. Indisputably, we didn’t manage these changes well, leading to a populist revolt that has brought us political leadership that many believe threatens the future of the Republic.
When I listen to the techno-optimists, they tell me that AI is going to make the industrial and information revolutions look trivial by comparison – and is going to come hard and fast. Indeed, a technology that is explicitly designed to do the current jobs of the educated class sounds pretty disruptive… Oren, you pooh-pooh the effectiveness of this tech as the ravings of technologists too high on their own supply, but you also champion Vance who seems to think Marc Andreeson is on to something (not on something). So… Seems like we should take the idea seriously, if you think we should take Vance seriously.
I don’t see how rapid economic displacement of the middle-management class will lead anywhere good… in the SHORT run. A society in which most educated folks - often deep in debt - end up rapidly losing their dreams, nursing resentments, and having too much time on their hands, strikes me as a society prone to be over-run by more bad ideas and movements.
I don’t have a solution. This leaves me in some despair, to be honest. But it doesn’t help to see smart folks like you and Vance ignoring the possibility that AI really is the most revolutionary tech we’ve yet seen, and that we don’t know what will happen when we open that Pandora’s Box. It's hard to be optimistic when smart folks who are so clear-minded in their critiques of others wear blinders of their own. Who is doing the hard and realistic work of developing pragmatic policy prescriptions for that future? UBI so that we can spend our time playing video games doesn't sound like a plan.
Oren, I know you're on to something when I see the trolls and bots out and going for you. Your ideas for a more effective, updated, and better serving republican party scares many who have been profiting off a losing, corrupt and physically and spiritually bankrupted system. Keep thinking and doing. You're on to something very important.
JD Vance, the Pope, and Some VCs Walked Into a Bar hurting all their foreheads simultaneously. JD reverting to his days as a jarhead in a country at war shouted G** D***! A mortal sin as we all know, in direct contravention of the third commandment. The pope horrified started to warn JD when out of nowhere with an ungodly crash a lightning bolt struck right next to where JD was standing. A voice from on high shouted......
Mr Cass—THANK YOU for your takedown of Kessler. The likes of him and Jenkins at the WSJ make me wonder when they will kick these guys out. I know I can be harsh at times, but this was a great laugh.
if Trump administration so keen on innovation & "building", why trash research organization like National Science Foundation & National Institutes of Health???
Also why does the administration focus on the Crypto “Industry”. You cannot eat or wear Crypto.
It's strange to read a speech and about the importance and value of labor and how great it's all going to be while the administration you lead so openly treats workers like garbage. The treatment of federal workers is just one example, where they've been razed with such rabid ferocity and pointless destructiveness--there is an actual art to downsizing--and these are not the workers who hounded Trump for years at the CIA and FBI, et al. They're just tens of thousands doing work that most people rely on, and not making tons of money either. The singular aspect that we've seen from this administration so far is simply a boundless expression of overreaching anger, and I think Oren is diminishing himself in imagining that it's all in service of building something. I increasingly don't see that--aside from rhetoric of 'it's going to be great' there's virtually no evidence of it--and I was similarly hopeful that Trump would be a force for some kind of necessary rethinking.
What's happening to universities and immigration and free speech will not in any way lead to American innovation of any kind. Just the reverse. People are already thinking about whether they should come here, and those here who aren't citizens (and even some who are) are looking anxiously elsewhere.
I love Oren and appreciate his clarity and willingness to challenge tired orthodoxies. He's completely refreshing. But I suspect he's going to find himself increasingly wondering whether this administration really represents anything new or geniuinely exciting, or just a more militant, corrupt, and intolerant version of late-stage capitalism.
We have an entrenched federal bureaucracy and consulting class in DC. I find it highly amusing you think they innocently exist and haven’t done everything possible to insulate themselves from accountability. To act as if one just needs to perform artful downsizing and thay will go well is very naive. I’m not a huge fan of the burn it all down approach, but the one thing it has going for it is the possibility something effective is achieved, even if unartful.
Isn’t that same pope that just reprimanded JD over “ordo amoris” and Don’s deportation policies? I’m sorry, I can’t take the guy seriously. His self-gelding on his views on Don says all you need to know about his character and convictions. He was right in his first analysis… To say nothing of the Haitian fiasco, and his gaslighting of poor North Carolina residents after their horrific floods. What kind of human lies openly to poor people who have lost everything?
While I am making the obvious faux pas of commenting on something I have not read (his speech is now in an open to read tab, I promise!), I am curious for those who have if JD Vance defines what "real innovation" is and what it is not? I wonder if real innovation is actually of benefit to everyone (or if there even is such an easily definable thing). If I were an owner of a corporation that employed cheap labor and that suddenly evaporated, I can easily imagine taking steps to automate a fair chunk of the work done by humans where possible. I presume that has upsides and downsides, but if it cut costs and increased profit, I would likely presume it to be a worthy, and dare I say it real innovation, at least for me and my class.
Really ? So the tech bros are going to save us...the same ones exporting (surreptitiously as your one read notes) our chip tech ?
And aren't you the one that claims all are robotics aren't improving wages ??
Looking forward to all the great innovating and the improvement of the minimum wage.
And is free markets and free trade mutually exclusive?
You are so caught up in dualism that is impacting your way to see clearly
Most business people and politicians think in the short term. JD is almost unique in thinking in the long term. We really need this man.
Thank you very much for this list of recommended articles. There’s several that I know I will definitely read, starting with Vance’s speech. Cheap labor and cheap stuff came at a huge cost.
By the way, I comment on a thread of one of my old college professors, and I often cite your articles when I disagree with something he has written about economics. I majored in English, so he and his professor friends are definitely liberal.
He doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with cheap stuff, and he definitely blew a gasket when I posted your Wall Street Journal article defending Trump’s tariffs. Anyway, I’m proud to be one of your earliest readers.
After recently re-reading Peter Thiel’s “Zero to One” book, I think a book needs to be written as a reply and the title would be “One to 100”. When you look at all of the big startup successes he talks about, they all share two key attributes. The first is that they went big when there was cheap money (after 2008 GFC). The second attribute is that (aside from Amazon), if they disappeared tomorrow, who would care (outside of the people with a financial interest). Just imagine a week without Facebook/Instagram, Twitter, Tesla, PayPal. The sun would still come up and cars would work.
In the beginning of Vance’s speech he references a journalist who “highlighted the tension between the techno-optimists and the populist right”.
Does anyone know who this journalist is?
Provide a link to the article in question?
Reference other interesting discussions of this tension?
After recently re-reading Peter Thiel’s “Zero to One” book, I think a book needs to be written as a reply and the title would be “One to 100”. It would cover the bulk of the world’s economic activities that are not startup related. When you look at all of the big startup successes he talks about, they all share two key attributes. The first is that they went big when there was cheap money (after 2008 GFC). The second attribute is that (aside from Amazon), if they disappeared tomorrow, who would care (outside of the people with a financial interest). Just imagine a week without Facebook/Instagram, Twitter, Tesla, PayPal. The sun would still come up and cars would work.
I have two technical questions:
1) if a technology is so freaking great then why does it need such vast amounts of energy to answer a question like "help me plan my vacation?"
2) Isn't the cheap energy similar to cheap labor? It too is a drug proven from the Dutch disease to the Saudi Arabian disenfranchisement
Good Point. Here is a good book to read to get some details about energy and technology. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/64645470-the-dark-cloud
“And the solution, I believe, is American innovation because, in the long run, it’s technology that increases the value of labor.”
That little clause, “in the long run”, is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
I agree 1000% with Vance’s optimistic take on the impact of tech EVENTUALLY. But having lived through a couple of these tech innovation cycles now (first, the advent of personal computing, then the internet/social media) it seems to me that human societies can only cope with so much change so fast.
The industrial revolution played out over more than a century – multiple human generations. We coped, after a fashion, although it gave rise to some pretty bad ideas and social movements that had to be put down (Communism, anyone?).
The “info revolution” happened more quickly – generously, 40 years from the decentralization of computing to now. It’s wrought a fair bit of social instability that is still playing out. Not just automation, but globalization itself is a consequence of “the world getting smaller” as a consequence of rapid advance in information technologies. Indisputably, we didn’t manage these changes well, leading to a populist revolt that has brought us political leadership that many believe threatens the future of the Republic.
When I listen to the techno-optimists, they tell me that AI is going to make the industrial and information revolutions look trivial by comparison – and is going to come hard and fast. Indeed, a technology that is explicitly designed to do the current jobs of the educated class sounds pretty disruptive… Oren, you pooh-pooh the effectiveness of this tech as the ravings of technologists too high on their own supply, but you also champion Vance who seems to think Marc Andreeson is on to something (not on something). So… Seems like we should take the idea seriously, if you think we should take Vance seriously.
I don’t see how rapid economic displacement of the middle-management class will lead anywhere good… in the SHORT run. A society in which most educated folks - often deep in debt - end up rapidly losing their dreams, nursing resentments, and having too much time on their hands, strikes me as a society prone to be over-run by more bad ideas and movements.
I don’t have a solution. This leaves me in some despair, to be honest. But it doesn’t help to see smart folks like you and Vance ignoring the possibility that AI really is the most revolutionary tech we’ve yet seen, and that we don’t know what will happen when we open that Pandora’s Box. It's hard to be optimistic when smart folks who are so clear-minded in their critiques of others wear blinders of their own. Who is doing the hard and realistic work of developing pragmatic policy prescriptions for that future? UBI so that we can spend our time playing video games doesn't sound like a plan.
Oren, I know you're on to something when I see the trolls and bots out and going for you. Your ideas for a more effective, updated, and better serving republican party scares many who have been profiting off a losing, corrupt and physically and spiritually bankrupted system. Keep thinking and doing. You're on to something very important.
JD Vance, the Pope, and Some VCs Walked Into a Bar hurting all their foreheads simultaneously. JD reverting to his days as a jarhead in a country at war shouted G** D***! A mortal sin as we all know, in direct contravention of the third commandment. The pope horrified started to warn JD when out of nowhere with an ungodly crash a lightning bolt struck right next to where JD was standing. A voice from on high shouted......
Mr Cass—THANK YOU for your takedown of Kessler. The likes of him and Jenkins at the WSJ make me wonder when they will kick these guys out. I know I can be harsh at times, but this was a great laugh.