Very nice! My bad for not having read this yet (shame on me). It sounds like it might veer toward techno-capitalism, but that doesn't seem to fit with the authors' orientations. If you put it on a continuum between techno-capitalism and tech-led abundance, where would it sit?
I think Klein & Thompson's book sits at the fulcrum point between them. In a way it is an attempt to get back to something like the industrial capitalism of the 1950s & 60s, one of broad growth & high average wages. I think they implicitly assume that if the Left promoted it, then it would flatten inequality and increase general prosperity - call it "Woke Capitalism" for lack of a better term. Their argument for this is not explicit and the arguments they do offer are generally around making things affordable by removing roadblocks and focusing on "good" tech that helps the environment. They spend a lot of time focusing on the phenomenon you label as the "Ineffective Left" driver, which is a good thing and likely why much of the Left's leadership felt attacked.
I agree broadly with Tim. In some ways it's dusting off the "Four Asian Tigers" development model. I'll note a few salient points:
1. The big difference from "tech-led" abundance is that a huge proportion of the book is about building things like housing. Much of their goal is simply government that works toward its stated goals instead of at cross-purposes.
2. There are some specific roles for technology invention and scaling, especially in energy infrastructure but also in healthcare with new cures etc. Here, again, the focus is on how the government can better support the work, and the answer isn't "get out of the way of the market".
3. Because so much of the focus is on physical things like glass and steel, it's not really about zero marginal costs in the way that seems important to Tech-Led Abundance and even more so to techno-capitalism (though certainly driving electricity to near zero cost would have dramatic consequences). They aren't arguing that we'll feel rich because of an abundance of TikTok videos.
Good overview Tristan! I enjoyed ABUNDANCE. It is an easy read which makes some good arguments. To me it looks like an attempt at a New Equilibrium vision between where we are now and a mostly Tech-led Abundance image of the future. The Noah Smith article you referenced in the footnotes is an interesting systems-thinking based market based argument written in plain language, but one that I do not find convincing. It fails to include other causal loops and fails to mention predatory actors in the housing market like equity funds and these guys: https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent
Very nice! My bad for not having read this yet (shame on me). It sounds like it might veer toward techno-capitalism, but that doesn't seem to fit with the authors' orientations. If you put it on a continuum between techno-capitalism and tech-led abundance, where would it sit?
I think Klein & Thompson's book sits at the fulcrum point between them. In a way it is an attempt to get back to something like the industrial capitalism of the 1950s & 60s, one of broad growth & high average wages. I think they implicitly assume that if the Left promoted it, then it would flatten inequality and increase general prosperity - call it "Woke Capitalism" for lack of a better term. Their argument for this is not explicit and the arguments they do offer are generally around making things affordable by removing roadblocks and focusing on "good" tech that helps the environment. They spend a lot of time focusing on the phenomenon you label as the "Ineffective Left" driver, which is a good thing and likely why much of the Left's leadership felt attacked.
I agree broadly with Tim. In some ways it's dusting off the "Four Asian Tigers" development model. I'll note a few salient points:
1. The big difference from "tech-led" abundance is that a huge proportion of the book is about building things like housing. Much of their goal is simply government that works toward its stated goals instead of at cross-purposes.
2. There are some specific roles for technology invention and scaling, especially in energy infrastructure but also in healthcare with new cures etc. Here, again, the focus is on how the government can better support the work, and the answer isn't "get out of the way of the market".
3. Because so much of the focus is on physical things like glass and steel, it's not really about zero marginal costs in the way that seems important to Tech-Led Abundance and even more so to techno-capitalism (though certainly driving electricity to near zero cost would have dramatic consequences). They aren't arguing that we'll feel rich because of an abundance of TikTok videos.
Good overview Tristan! I enjoyed ABUNDANCE. It is an easy read which makes some good arguments. To me it looks like an attempt at a New Equilibrium vision between where we are now and a mostly Tech-led Abundance image of the future. The Noah Smith article you referenced in the footnotes is an interesting systems-thinking based market based argument written in plain language, but one that I do not find convincing. It fails to include other causal loops and fails to mention predatory actors in the housing market like equity funds and these guys: https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent