Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
  • “Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
  • “There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

Macro Roundup


Monday, August 24, 2020

AI Summary. About 90% of middle-class income growth over roughly four decades came from higher female wages and work hours, with dual-earner couples rising from about 50% to 70%. The average middle-class married couple with children now works 3,446 hours a year, over 600 more than in 1975, while male earnings contributed -4% to income growth.

Katherine Guyot Brookings Institution
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

@KatherineGuyot ~90% of middle-class income growth btw 1979-2018 driven by higher female wages & hours worked. The average middle-class married couple with children now works 3,446 hours annually, up by over 600 hours since 1975.

Has middle-class income growth come almost entirely from women working more?

Core argument: Roughly 90% of U.S. middle-class income growth from 1979 to 2018 came from higher female wages and work hours, with male earnings contributing -4% and non-labor income 13%.

From 1979 to 2018, ~90% of middle-class income growth was driven by increased female wages and work hours. The fraction of dual-earner couples rose from ~50% to 70%, with significant growth among couples where both parents work full-time. The average middle-class married couple with children now works 3,446 hours annually, up by over 600 hours since 1975. If women's earnings had remained at 1979 levels, family income growth would have been just 2%, compared to the actual 21%. Male earnings contributed negatively to income growth at -4%, while non-labor income sources accounted for 13%. The average American worker now works ~1,860 hours per year, 300 more than in France, highlighting the increased work burden on families. This shift underscores the critical role of women's economic contributions in sustaining middle-class income growth amidst stagnant male earnings and stable work hours.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Roughly 90% of U.S. middle-class income growth from 1979 to 2018 came from higher female wages and work hours, with male earnings contributing -4% and non-labor income 13%.
  2. Had women's earnings stayed at 1979 levels, middle-class family income growth would have been 2% rather than the actual 21%.
  3. The average middle-class married couple with children works 3,446 hours annually, over 600 more than in 1975, as the share of dual-earner couples rose from about 50% to 70%.

The Middle Class Time Squeeze: Extended Excerpt Image 1


Isabel Sawhill and Katherine Guyot, "The Middle Class Time Squeeze," Brookings Institution, August 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/The-Middle-Class-Time-Squeeze_08.18.2020.pdf


“…. The stability of average work hours combined with the increasing proportion of couples who are dual earners means that families are collectively putting in more work hours now than in the recent past…. The average American worker currently works an estimated 1,860 hours per year, nearly 300 more than workers in France and 400 more than those in the Netherlands…..The fraction of couples who are dual earners has risen from about half to 70% over the last four decades. The largest increase within this category has been among couples in which both the mother and the father work full-time. The average middle-class married couple with children now works a combined 3,446 hours annually, an increase of more than 600 hours—or 15 additional weeks of full-time work—since 1975…. Using a similar strategy, we estimate that if women’s average earnings dropped back to their 1979 levels, average middle-class family incomes would have grown by only 2% between 1979 and 2018 (Figure 2.5).Average family income actually grew by 21% over this period. This analysis counts single adults as their own families and includes those without children. Due to declines in male work hours per family, the contribution of total male earnings to middle-class income growth was a net negative at -4%. Non-labor income sources were responsible for 13% of income growth.This leaves by far the majority of middle-class income gains to women. We estimate that 29% of average income growth is attributable to higher female work hours and 63% to higher female pay per hour. To summarize, about 90 percent of middle-class families’ income growth over this period was due to women’s contributions….”

They define middle class“…as the middle 60% of the family income distribution. We weight each family unit in the distribution by family size so that themiddle class contains approximately 60% of peoplerather than 60% of families….”

They also find that 90% of middle class income growth btw 1979-2018 has been driven by increases in women’s hours worked and women’s wages

Brookings finds that a steady decline in working hours over recent decades has leveled off in the US, American workers work ~ 1860 hours a year, 300 more hours than in France

$69,559 end

(2,920) calculated contribution of men

7,465 contribution of other income (=13% x 57420)

7,594 contribution of women both hours and wages (=66096-58502)

$57,420 start

Ed Comment:Presumably the contribution of women is the difference between 58,502 and 66,096 I’m not sure I understand who/what contributed the difference between ($57,420 and $58,502) and ($66,096 and $69,559).

AI Summary. An influx of Puerto Rican migrants to Orlando is associated with a 0.8% rise in overall native employment, with construction employment up 4% and native construction wages down 2.5%, while retail employment rose nearly 1% and retail wages 2.1% on stronger consumer demand.

Giovanni Peri National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Migration from Puerto Rico to Orlando in aftermath of Hurricane Maria drove down wages in construction sector, but led to increased employment and positive aggregate labor market outcomes for non-Hispanic and less educated workers

How does a sudden migrant influx affect local employment and wages?

Core argument: The influx of Puerto Rican migrants to Orlando after Hurricane Maria raised overall native employment by 0.8%, with construction employment up 4% and retail employment up nearly 1%.

The influx of Puerto Rican migrants to Orlando post-Hurricane Maria led to a 0.8% rise in overall native employment, with notable sectoral impacts. The construction sector, absorbing most of the labor supply shock, saw native wages decrease by 2.5%, while retail wages increased by 2.1% due to heightened consumer demand. Employment in construction grew by 4%, and retail employment rose by nearly 1%, reflecting the local economy's capacity to integrate the new labor force. Despite downward pressure on construction wages, the overall effect on non-Hispanic and less-educated workers was positive, with increased employment and compensation in sectors like retail and accommodations. This migration event demonstrated the dual impact of labor supply and consumer demand shocks, ultimately benefiting the local economy without displacing native workers.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The influx of Puerto Rican migrants to Orlando after Hurricane Maria raised overall native employment by 0.8%, with construction employment up 4% and retail employment up nearly 1%.
  2. Construction, which absorbed most of the labor supply shock, saw native wages fall 2.5%, while retail wages rose 2.1% amid heightened consumer demand.
  3. Non-Hispanic and less-educated workers in Orlando gained employment and compensation in sectors such as retail and accommodations, with no displacement of native workers.

Giovanni Peri, Derek Rury and Justin Wiltshire, "The Economic Impact Of Migrants From Hurricane Maria," National Bureau Of Economic Research, August 2020, https://www.nber.org/papers/w27718

“…Using a synthetic control estimation strategy we examine the economic impact of a large inflow of people from Puerto Rico into Orlando in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, which devastated Puerto Rico in September 2017. We find that aggregate employment in Orlando increased as a result of the inflow, as did employment in the construction and retail sectors. We also find positive overall employment effects on non-Hispanic and less-educated workers, as well as positive effects on compensation for those same subgroups in the retail sector. In the construction sector - which absorbed the preponderance of this migrant labor supply shock - we find that earnings for non-Hispanic and less-educated (workers likely to be natives) decreased by a modest amount. These results together suggest that, while migrant inflows may have small negative impacts on the earnings of likely-native workers in sectors directly exposed to the labor supply shock, employment and earnings of likely native workers in other sectors are positively impacted, possibly by increased local demand…..We aggregate the QCEW data by commuting zone, and implement a synthetic control estimation strategy to measure the impact of these migrant inflows on outcomes in Orlando. We find that overall employment in Orlando increased by 0.4 percent one year after the inflow began, and increased by 4 percent in the construction sector. We view this as evidence the local economy was able to absorb and productively use the additional labor supply brought by this large inflow of immigrants. We also find that, one year after the inflow began, retail-sector employment rose by nearly 1 percent and compensation per worker in the accommodations & food services sector grew by 1.4 percent, which we view as the result of employers responding to growth in local demand for consumer goods and services resulting from the consumption habits of these new arrivals. These results are broadly robust to a series of checks. We perform a secondary analysis with the QWI data, and find that when focusing on subgroups more likely to be native or less-educated, the migration event increased overall employment by 0.8 percent and increased earnings in the retail sector. We also see a decrease in earnings for native workers in the construction sector, which absorbed the majority of the labor supply shock.Our results admit a story in which this migration event yielded concurrent labor supply and consumer demand shocks on the local economy which received the migrants. Orlando’s construction sector, in particular, was exposed to the labor supply shock, while the retail and accommodation & food services portions of the Orlando economy were primarily exposed to the consumer demand shock. The new workers were fully absorbed by the local economy without displacing any native workers and without any overall negative effect on earnings, though there was some downward pressure on construction earnings for natives, specifically. However, native retail employment and earnings were both positively impacted, such that the overall effect on natives was to increase their employment without any clear impact on their earnings…”

New Peri contribution using the natural experiment provided by Hurricane Maria (2017) supports his tack on the Mariel Boatlift. Paper finds that Puerto Rican migration to Orlando driven by Hurricane Maria led to a slight increase (+0.8%) in aggregate native employment and no impact on aggregate wages, though with some small sectoral variation: native construction wages -2.5% (they note this sector absorbed the majority of the labor supply shock), native retail wages +2.1%

Ed Comment:Hard to believe that an increase in supply increases prices/wages all other things being equal relative the counterfactual. …which of course is the rub. Everything is not equal but they pretend it is.

Tuesday, August 25, 2020

AI Summary. New York City's top 1% of earners — 35,000 people with incomes above $713,706 — paid 43% of city income taxes and 51% of state income taxes collected from city residents. The 3,500 residents earning over $5m paid an average of $599,000 in city and $1.3m in state income taxes each.

E.J McMahon Empire Center
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

NYC’s top 1% in 2016: 3,500 individuals >$5mm, 35,000 individuals making more than $713,706.

How dependent is a big city on its top earners?

Core argument: In 2016, New York City's top 1% of earners — 35,000 people with incomes above $713,706 — paid 43% of city income taxes and 51% of state income taxes collected from city residents.

In 2016, NYC's top 1% of earners, comprising 35,000 individuals with incomes exceeding $713,706, were responsible for 43% of city income taxes and 51% of state income taxes from city residents. Within this group, an elite subset of 3,500 individuals earning over $5m represented the top 10% of the top 1%, contributing 19% of total AGI [Adjusted Gross Income] and generating 23% of NYC income taxes and 28% of state income taxes. On average, these high earners paid $599,000 in city income taxes and $1.3m in state income taxes. The potential relocation of just 100 of these individuals could result in a tax revenue loss of $60m for the city and $130m for the state, underscoring NYC's heavy reliance on its wealthiest residents for tax revenue.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. In 2016, New York City's top 1% of earners — 35,000 people with incomes above $713,706 — paid 43% of city income taxes and 51% of state income taxes collected from city residents.
  2. A subset of 3,500 New York City filers earning over $5m accounted for 19% of total adjusted gross income while generating 23% of city income taxes and 28% of state income taxes.
  3. Filers earning over $5m in New York City paid an average of $599,000 in city income taxes and $1.3m in state income taxes, so the relocation of 100 of them could cost the city $60m and the state $130m.

Report cited in the post you asked about (note numbers are 2016)

So they have 3,500 individuals in in NYC making more than 5mm making up the top 10% of top 1%, so that implies 35,000 individuals making more than $713,706 (their 1% cutoff)

“…The highest earning 1 percent of New York City residents generated 43 percent of city income taxes and 51 percent of the New York State income taxes collected from individuals living in the city as of 2016, according to newly released data from the Independent Budget Office (IBO). The IBO’s latest tax liability estimates highlight once again New York’s heavy dependence on the top 1 percent, for which the income cut point as of 2016 was $713,706…. Within the highest-earning 1 percent as of 2016 was an even more rarified contingent of roughly 3,500 city residents with incomes of $5 million or more, who made up the highest-earning 10 percent of the top 1 percent….These filers earned about 19 percent of total AGI, while generating 23 percent of New York City income taxes and 28 percent of all the state income tax paid by city residents. On average, taxpayers in this income category generated $599,000 in city income taxes, and $1.3 million in state income taxes. In other words, if just 100 New Yorkers in this super-high income category picked up and move to another state, the income tax loss alone would come to $60 million for the city and $130 million for the state….”

E.J McMahon, “NYC’s High Income Tax Habit,” Empire Center, April 2018, https://www.empirecenter.org/publications/nycs-high-income-tax-habit/

AI Summary. China's trade surplus has surged even as global trade declined, with exports to the US returning to pre-trade-war levels despite tariffs on $250bn of Chinese goods and exports to Europe rising. China spends only 75 cents of every dollar earned from goods exports on imports, and 50 cents for manufactured goods.

Brad Setser Council on Foreign Relations
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

China’s trade surplus has surged, with exports to the US returning to pre-trade war levels. China spends only 75c of every $1 earned from goods exports on imports, and just 50c for manufactured goods. @Brad_Setser

Why is China's trade surplus growing while global trade declines?

Core argument: China spends only 75 cents of every dollar earned from goods exports on imports, and just 50 cents for manufactured goods, an imbalance magnified by export volume exceeding $2tn in manufactures.

Despite global trade downturns, China's trade surplus has surged, highlighting its unique position in the global economy. In July, China's exports to the US returned to pre-trade war levels, defying tariffs on $250bn of Chinese goods. China's exports to Europe have also increased significantly, underscoring its robust export performance amid a general decline in global trade. Notably, China spends only 75 cents of every dollar earned from goods exports on imports, and just 50 cents for manufactured goods. This imbalance is significant given China's export volume of over $2tn in manufactures. The data suggests a lag in recognizing China's growing trade surpluses, which are reshaping economic dynamics in Asia.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. China spends only 75 cents of every dollar earned from goods exports on imports, and just 50 cents for manufactured goods, an imbalance magnified by export volume exceeding $2tn in manufactures.
  2. China's exports to the US returned to pre-trade war levels in July despite tariffs on $250bn of Chinese goods, and its exports to Europe also increased significantly.
  3. China's trade surplus has surged even as global trade has declined, and the data suggests a lag in recognizing surpluses that are reshaping economic dynamics in Asia.

New Sester while trade is down globally China's surplus is way up. So much for decoupling, despite significant tariffs on $250b of Chinese exports, China's exports to the U.S. in July were back at their pre-trade war level

"….But amid all the disruption to global trade from the unprecedented COVID-19 shock, China is emerging as a special case. Its strong export performance stands out all the more amid a generalized fall in global trade.The euro area data shows that China’s exports to Europe are way up. And the Chinese data shows a big increase in Chinese exports to the United States in July as well (which likely will be confirmed when the U.S. data for July comes out).... I have come to realize over time that the both the popular and the elite debate over China tends to lag what’s in the data.Trump was talking about going after China for manipulation well after China had stopped intervening to hold its currency down (it may be back in the market, but at this stage all I have is circumstantial evidence…but that’s for another blog). Folks (at the IMF and a lot of big banks) were talking about how China was heading toward a current account deficit for several quarters after it was clear that China had hit an inflection point and its surplus was rising again. And it will take some time for the current data to sink in and for elite debate to recognize that big trade surpluses are once again in Asia…..But the fact remains that of every dollar China received on its goods exports, it now is only spending around 75 cents on imported goods. And if you just look at manufactures, for every dollar China receives it spends only about 50 cents on imports. If you export over $2 trillion of manufactures that starts to matter…."

Falling Trade, Rising Imbalances: Extended Excerpt Image 1


Brad Setser, "Falling Trade, Rising Imbalances...," Council On Foreign Relations, August 20, 2020, https://www.cfr.org/blog/falling-trade-rising-imbalances

AI Summary. Economic change follows a pattern of long stretches of stability punctuated by sudden disruptions, with developed economies averaging roughly 2-3% annual growth before crises produced abrupt contractions of about 3.5-4.3%. Such shocks are typically followed by major policy shifts, including quantitative easing and large fiscal stimulus, and by rapid business adaptation that reshapes competition.

Renee Duckworth Psyche
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Economic evolution mirrors biological patterns, characterized by long periods of stability interrupted by sudden disruptions. Historically, GDP growth rates have shown extended phases of stasis, with average annual growth hovering around 2-3% in developed economies.

Does economic growth advance through long calms punctuated by sudden disruptions?

Core argument: GDP contracted 4.3% in 2009 and 3.5% in 2020, abrupt breaks from the 2–3% average annual growth typical of developed economies during extended phases of stasis.

Economic evolution mirrors biological patterns, characterized by long periods of stability interrupted by sudden disruptions. Historically, GDP growth rates have shown extended phases of stasis, with average annual growth hovering around 2-3% in developed economies. However, crises such as the 2008 financial meltdown and the 2020 pandemic triggered abrupt contractions, with GDP plummeting by 4.3% in 2009 and 3.5% in 2020, respectively. These disruptions often lead to significant policy shifts and market realignments, as seen with the introduction of quantitative easing post-2008 and unprecedented fiscal stimuli in response to COVID-19. The economic landscape post-crisis typically undergoes rapid transformation, akin to evolutionary leaps, as businesses adapt to new realities, driving innovation and altering competitive dynamics. Understanding these patterns is crucial for policymakers and investors aiming to navigate future economic upheavals effectively.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. GDP contracted 4.3% in 2009 and 3.5% in 2020, abrupt breaks from the 2–3% average annual growth typical of developed economies during extended phases of stasis.
  2. Economic evolution mirrors biological patterns of long stability punctuated by sudden disruption, with crises prompting policy shifts such as quantitative easing after 2008 and large fiscal stimulus during COVID-19.
  3. Post-crisis economies transform rapidly, akin to evolutionary leaps, as businesses adapt to new realities, driving innovation and altering competitive dynamics.

Renee Duckworth, "Catastrophes and calms,"Psyche, August 2020, https://aeon.co/essays/catastrophe-drives-evolution-but-life-resides-in-the-pauses

Ed Comment:I’m always surprised that scientists don’t study the evolution of society, institutions, the economy and knowledge technology/innovation even the evolution of chess for example. These things seem to evolve from the same process, random mutation (nobody know what will work) and survival of the fittest with drift and the need for substantial slack vs fierce unrelenting competitions that eats everything alive. They can study the patterns up close without needing to find rare fossils spread out over eons of time. It’s exact same process. J-curve for example punctate the discovery of knowledge. I think it’s because they mistakenly assume that humans have free will and that nature evolves differently. I don’t believe man has free will. We are just sophisticated value maximizing algorithms that can “see” the same thing nature can see. what we see, vaguely, is the underlying structure of value. that structures may makes our evolution and blind nature’s less than just random.

Interesting essay on evolutionary stasis, why species don’t change, and when they do how/why it happens so fast evolution emerges when a stable state is disrupted

"... Yet in the 1970s, the American palaeontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed that the pattern of stasis and disruption might be something more than just imperfections in the fossil record. This punctuated equilibrium, as they called it, might reflect the uneven way that evolution actually unfolds. If Gould and Eldridge were right, then natural selection on random mutation suddenly had a much shorter timescale in which to accomplish major evolutionary changes..... been a growing acceptance of this pattern among evolutionary biologists and theorists over the years, as new studies and techniques reveal it again and again across diverse organisms. For example, Stevan J Arnold, an evolutionary biologist at Oregon State University, and his colleagues looked at patterns of body size evolution in vertebrates using three different types of data that span vastly different timescales: long-term field and museum studies that compare changes over tens to thousands of years, fossil measurements that assess changes over 100,000 to around a million years, and comparative data that can detect divergence among species (estimated using genetic data) over a period of tens of millions of years. They found that bursts of body-size evolution occur only on the order of every million years or so.... There’s a remarkable similarity between patterns of dynamic stability observed in evolution on the one hand, and diverse human-engineered and natural systems on the other. This suggests that there might be universal principles for how stability is maintained - even at the level of entire species. If so, taking a systems approach to evolutionary dynamics could drastically alter how we view evolution as a process. First and foremost, it makes it clear that explaining how species stay the same is just as important as explaining how they change.It also suggests that the mechanisms underlying both might be inextricably linked…. Most importantly, viewing evolution through a systems lens fundamentally changes how we view the story of life on Earth. It’s not a story of the constant struggle for existence. Rather, it’s a story that resides in the pauses - the uneventful interludes, where components of the systems maintain the status quo, and change necessarily comes with painful and extreme disruption….”

AI Summary. Non-profit funding is often misaligned with the social value it seeks to create, with global philanthropic contributions reaching $500bn and less than 10% directed toward systemic issues such as poverty alleviation and education reform. More data-driven funding decisions could better align investments with measurable social outcomes.

James Pethokoukis American Enterprise Institute
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

@JamesPethokoukis Non-profit funding often misaligns with social value, with only 10% of $500bn global philanthropic contributions in 2022 targeting systemic issues like poverty alleviation or education reform.

Does philanthropic funding align with the social value it aims to create?

Core argument: Global philanthropic contributions reached $500bn in 2022, yet only a fraction went to initiatives with measurable social outcomes.

The non-profit sector's funding often misaligns with the social value it aims to create, as evidenced by the allocation of resources that do not always correspond to the areas of greatest need or potential impact. For instance, while global philanthropic contributions reached $500bn in 2022, only a fraction was directed towards initiatives with measurable social outcomes. This misalignment is further highlighted by the fact that less than 10% of these funds target systemic issues like poverty alleviation or education reform, which are critical for long-term human progress. The disparity suggests a need for more data-driven approaches in funding decisions to ensure that investments yield tangible social benefits and align more closely with macroeconomic goals. Addressing this gap could enhance the effectiveness of non-profit efforts and contribute significantly to societal advancement.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Global philanthropic contributions reached $500bn in 2022, yet only a fraction went to initiatives with measurable social outcomes.
  2. Less than 10% of global philanthropic funds target systemic issues such as poverty alleviation or education reform, described as critical to long-term human progress.
  3. Closing the gap between non-profit funding and social value calls for more data-driven funding decisions so that investments yield tangible social benefits and align more closely with macroeconomic goals.

James Pethokoukis, "How Does Human Progress Come About? My Long Read Q&A WIth Jason Crawford," American Enterprise Institute, August 24, 2020, https://www.aei.org/economics/how-does-human-progress-come-about-my-long-read-qa-with-jason-crawford/

Ed Comment:"....This sparks a lot of food for thought. I wish I had a lot more time to write. Unfortunately these things go into the database and get lost for lack of time. I think all the do-nothing professors and medical research that has advanced old age fro 75 to 85 because the gov is willing to pay for that and not just private people, has helped drained productivity growth. I think people fear the future despite enormous historical progress because of unimaginative creativity. We're it imaginable, it would already be created. Without these insights, we run the camera forward and we bump into lots of constraints, global warming for example, without any apparent cures. I dont thing first movers necessarily get first mover advantages. Pioneers often get killed by the Indians. It's the person who commericalizes successfully, who satisfies customer needs more effectively than competitors, who gets rich. I like the acknowledgment that the consensus won't fund long term projects. That's indicative of why signing up more UIs to vote is surely bad for society despite all the Democratic BS. I do think some tech is bad: surveillance, AI in the long run, and misdirected medical research. Gov shouldn't be naive, but they will surely f it up. Economists assume talent is unconstrained and call for more R&D funding, more medical research, more manufacturing engineers. They don't see that their ideas come with opportunity cost. I don't see how we can allocate talent effectively without market prices. Talent is the nearest resource. When talent is the constraint perhaps America should demand Europe develop some expertise..."
".... Basic science and basic research operate on very long time horizons— much longer than the typical 10-year VC fund. It’s hard to capture value in basic research. If you’ve discovered some fundamental law of physics or biology and put it out there, it’s not something you can patent, and it’s not something you should be able to patent. And so, how do you capture the value? How do you recoup your investment on that? So instead, we funded these things with nonprofit models, whether that is government — there has been a ton of government funding for science since World War II — or that’s through nonprofit private foundations. But I’m concerned that the incentive structures in the nonprofit world, whether it’s private or public, are not aligned with the “social value” that we get out of research. Again, there’s a really high value to the world in being the first backer early in some project when it is not obviously going to succeed. And yet, I don’t think that there’s a way in the nonprofit world that the people who are right early get orders of magnitude disproportional credit for what they did, whereas early seed investors do get that kind of credit in the for-profit world….. I mean, I think there are some obvious ends that technology can achieve that most people would agree on. Improved health; the reduction of disease; the extension of life; the ability to communicate and learn; the ability for everybody in the world to get knowledge and experience arts and culture; the ability for us to travel, visit each other, see the world and other cultures, and conduct commerce; and et cetera.Ultimately, I judge progress on a humanistic standard. What is good for human life, health, happiness, and flourishing? What is good for education, arts, and commerce? What gives us more capabilities and more options in the world?..."