The author brings up something I had not heard of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Stagnation, in the first paragraph. The article does not at all address how technology is going to end the horror of the great stagnation, the total loss of power by labor, who then became serfs bound to serve the rent seeking elite.
Once the tone was set, I found it impossible to focus on techno-optimism. We can't maintain growth forever, more technology by itself can't get us out of it.
My reading is that the author tries to address Cowen's stagnation.
The article lists four General Purpose Technologies[1]: cheap bulk electricity storage (lithium-ion battery improvements), ubiquitous internet via Starlink, ASICs (customised chips), and the technologies around CRISPR. These can be expected to have increasing effects on productivity over the course of the next two decades.[2]
Neither Cowen nor TFA address distribution (or its effect on productivity). Cowen appears to believe in trickle-down economics, which has been thoroughly disproved in the real world. The article does not discuss distribution at all.
My take is that yes, we can't maintain growth forever, but there seems to be headroom for a few decades yet.
Whether ordinary people benefit from these GPTs is a political question. We don't have good technologies for politics. (Or: some of the technologies we have right now are actively making the political process worse.)
2. Lithium-ion batteries - logistics improvements (ground transport and short-hop air transport) and electric grid cost reductions; ASICs and ubiquitous internet - production and logistics automation for all kinds of goods and services; CRISPR and related technologies - improved population health, so lower deadweight loss: fewer productive resources will be used caring for ill people.
2 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 17.7 ms ] threadOnce the tone was set, I found it impossible to focus on techno-optimism. We can't maintain growth forever, more technology by itself can't get us out of it.
The article lists four General Purpose Technologies[1]: cheap bulk electricity storage (lithium-ion battery improvements), ubiquitous internet via Starlink, ASICs (customised chips), and the technologies around CRISPR. These can be expected to have increasing effects on productivity over the course of the next two decades.[2]
Neither Cowen nor TFA address distribution (or its effect on productivity). Cowen appears to believe in trickle-down economics, which has been thoroughly disproved in the real world. The article does not discuss distribution at all.
My take is that yes, we can't maintain growth forever, but there seems to be headroom for a few decades yet.
Whether ordinary people benefit from these GPTs is a political question. We don't have good technologies for politics. (Or: some of the technologies we have right now are actively making the political process worse.)
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_purpose_technology
2. Lithium-ion batteries - logistics improvements (ground transport and short-hop air transport) and electric grid cost reductions; ASICs and ubiquitous internet - production and logistics automation for all kinds of goods and services; CRISPR and related technologies - improved population health, so lower deadweight loss: fewer productive resources will be used caring for ill people.