I am prescriptively optimistic, but descriptively pessimistic in specific cases when the facts warrant it. As I wrote in Chapter 5:
“… optimism vs. pessimism can be a false dichotomy. We need to fully acknowledge problems, while vigorously pursuing solutions. Call it ‘solutionism.‘”
“Both optimism and pessimism can be blind. Blind optimism becomes complacency, a denial that problems even exist. Blind pessimism becomes defeatism, a denial that solutions are possible. Both types of blindness encourage passivity, when what is needed is action.”
Firstly, this argument is running partly on salience. Stuff like polycrystaline diamond drill bits, that are having a big effect in the drilling industry aren't things the average person sees or thinks about a lot. Same for crispr.
So, we are talking consumer facing tech.
When a tech is first invented, it is often expensive and or not that great. Tech rollouts often take time. If 3d printers or delivery drones become common household devices, people can point back to current versions and say they are old tech. In order to have something invented in the last 20 years in everyones houses, that thing needs to go from 1 lab to every house in just 20 years.
Also, the "bits" tech cluster contains a wide range of different techs. From fibre optics to microwave data transmission to Cpus to hard disks and RAM etc. Also some techs that aren't inherently data based and are just along for the ride. Like LED's or Lithium ion batteries or PV solar panels.
Also the where is all the progress apart from [field of tech with loads of progress] is an inherently suspicious argument. Couldn't you have said "apart from all the steam engines, where is all the progress" in the industrial revolution.
So, total factor productivity possibilities.
1) Dodgy statistics.
2) The internet can't capture the value it creates. So much of it is basically free. If people paid $20 to buy a video cassette, that showed up in the statistics as $20 of value produced. If people watch the video online for free, that basically doesn't show up.
3) It's amazing that productivity hasn't plummeted. People are on their phones all day instead of actually working.
4) Some jobs can't be automated, not because the tech isn't there, but because of society. Whether labor union rules, or legal complience or ... Or because it's a red queens race. If computers make it easier to produce neat looking reports, the standard expected quality and/or the number of reports go up. We now have an economy full of useless jobs. Which makes it hard for automation to improve productivity.
Looking back at history, the huge growth of the 19th century and the evil writings of Kant, Marx, and Hegel. Then their teachings being taught in colleges and the age of envy followed by the passage of the anti-business Sherman Anti Trust Act. Then, the FTC and other laws to burden business. Read "The Abolition of Anti-Trust" by Gary Hull that tells about the decisions by courts and the fines and even prison time. A real life illutration of "hating the good for being the good".
Fantastic read! As a side remark, I want to call your attention to CRISPR-Cas9, a revolutionary gene-editing technology pioneered by biochemist Dr. Jennifer Doudna. I think you will find this development very interesting.
I think the trick to bringing back robust growth is actually pretty boilerplate. Things like:
- More globalization, for efficiency, gains from specialization and trade, etc., including
- Open borders: let people go where they can thrive best to unleash creativity and productivity;
- Deregulation and respect for rights: innovation needs to be permissionless. We need to stand up to bully governments and put them in a cage. But also:
- Planning: Governments can be limited and at the same TRY to anticipate where the opportunities for progress are and steer their investments to achieve that.
- Savings: People grow the economy by saving and investing. There's a wrinkle here around the Zero Lower Bound for interest rates (long story) and sometimes inflation should punish money for sitting on the sidelines, but a low rate of time discounting is good.
The above is obvious-ish. Things can get subtle if you pursue those lines further but many key ingredients for growth don't take a lot of insight.
A rare but rather pessimistic post of yours, i wonder if you felt weird posting this
I am prescriptively optimistic, but descriptively pessimistic in specific cases when the facts warrant it. As I wrote in Chapter 5:
“… optimism vs. pessimism can be a false dichotomy. We need to fully acknowledge problems, while vigorously pursuing solutions. Call it ‘solutionism.‘”
“Both optimism and pessimism can be blind. Blind optimism becomes complacency, a denial that problems even exist. Blind pessimism becomes defeatism, a denial that solutions are possible. Both types of blindness encourage passivity, when what is needed is action.”
https://newsletter.rootsofprogress.org/p/solutionism-part-1
I wrote more about prescriptive vs. descriptive optimism here:
https://blog.rootsofprogress.org/descriptive-vs-prescriptive-optimism
Firstly, this argument is running partly on salience. Stuff like polycrystaline diamond drill bits, that are having a big effect in the drilling industry aren't things the average person sees or thinks about a lot. Same for crispr.
So, we are talking consumer facing tech.
When a tech is first invented, it is often expensive and or not that great. Tech rollouts often take time. If 3d printers or delivery drones become common household devices, people can point back to current versions and say they are old tech. In order to have something invented in the last 20 years in everyones houses, that thing needs to go from 1 lab to every house in just 20 years.
Also, the "bits" tech cluster contains a wide range of different techs. From fibre optics to microwave data transmission to Cpus to hard disks and RAM etc. Also some techs that aren't inherently data based and are just along for the ride. Like LED's or Lithium ion batteries or PV solar panels.
Also the where is all the progress apart from [field of tech with loads of progress] is an inherently suspicious argument. Couldn't you have said "apart from all the steam engines, where is all the progress" in the industrial revolution.
So, total factor productivity possibilities.
1) Dodgy statistics.
2) The internet can't capture the value it creates. So much of it is basically free. If people paid $20 to buy a video cassette, that showed up in the statistics as $20 of value produced. If people watch the video online for free, that basically doesn't show up.
3) It's amazing that productivity hasn't plummeted. People are on their phones all day instead of actually working.
4) Some jobs can't be automated, not because the tech isn't there, but because of society. Whether labor union rules, or legal complience or ... Or because it's a red queens race. If computers make it easier to produce neat looking reports, the standard expected quality and/or the number of reports go up. We now have an economy full of useless jobs. Which makes it hard for automation to improve productivity.
Looking back at history, the huge growth of the 19th century and the evil writings of Kant, Marx, and Hegel. Then their teachings being taught in colleges and the age of envy followed by the passage of the anti-business Sherman Anti Trust Act. Then, the FTC and other laws to burden business. Read "The Abolition of Anti-Trust" by Gary Hull that tells about the decisions by courts and the fines and even prison time. A real life illutration of "hating the good for being the good".
Fantastic read! As a side remark, I want to call your attention to CRISPR-Cas9, a revolutionary gene-editing technology pioneered by biochemist Dr. Jennifer Doudna. I think you will find this development very interesting.
I think the trick to bringing back robust growth is actually pretty boilerplate. Things like:
- More globalization, for efficiency, gains from specialization and trade, etc., including
- Open borders: let people go where they can thrive best to unleash creativity and productivity;
- Deregulation and respect for rights: innovation needs to be permissionless. We need to stand up to bully governments and put them in a cage. But also:
- Planning: Governments can be limited and at the same TRY to anticipate where the opportunities for progress are and steer their investments to achieve that.
- Savings: People grow the economy by saving and investing. There's a wrinkle here around the Zero Lower Bound for interest rates (long story) and sometimes inflation should punish money for sitting on the sidelines, but a low rate of time discounting is good.
The above is obvious-ish. Things can get subtle if you pursue those lines further but many key ingredients for growth don't take a lot of insight.
Call it crazy, but this is exactly what I needed to read today.
Oh, why?