This is a very complex topic. It’s not a line item policy matter. All the things that make manufacturing at a national scale possible were sold off, using US funds to finance the sale. Expertise, infrastructure, trade secrets, training, everything. Even if we could instantly recreate what Wall Street sold off, we’d be decades behind the rest of the world.
People like to believe that US manufacturing was in a leadership position until China came along. But the truth is that we were on our last leg by the early 70s. We had stopped focusing on improved production and had let the banks dictate how things were made. That’s why the Japanese were able to slide into the U.S. market.
As long as the finance sector determines how our manufacturing sector functions, we’re in a hopeless position.
Really loved this conversation, such a complex problem. Shoutout to DUST, those guys rule. One thing that popped into my head while listening (still have to read the original essay) was that even if we could begin re-aligning policy to industrialize...and somehow we convinced labor that they should show up to the factory...and capital was willing to come in...I feel like we end up getting squeezed on raw materials at some point if it starts working. I'm thinking mainly about electronics and rare metals, but I think the same would be true for pretty much anything.
I think Conrad said it well at the end that we need to remember the end goal should be to create prosperity for the people. We’re in a doom spiral with lack of skills and increased career expectations intersecting with less opportunity and more automation. I really hope more crazy people just go for it and start making more things, because it's awesome and it's important and it's rewarding.
Great conversation really appreciated. I've spent the last six months looking at the demographics and data of China. As usual, it's so much more complicated than people portray. I'm going to read Conrad's essays because it feels like Conrad's done a similar job on the US system and I need to catch up. I made it all the way through to the end of the podcast, but I was debating when Conrad got assassinated and on which step. It is probably a good idea that he can't run.
I want to dive deeper into how Conracd portrayed Europe, because the podcast puts it in a pretty bad light. But again, the devil's in the detail. Or perhaps to quote the ending "winning is an option not a default".
Thanks Colin! As you note in the piece you just published:
> “However, growing industrial capacity is super hard. America has the capital, but does it really, really want to go back to building “hard things”.
It's daunting and (somewhat) depressing, even for the natural optimists of the world to consider the true scope of the problem. I think it’s a fun thought exercise to just go through the endless laundry list of problems and imagine waving a magic wand to make them vanish. In reality, neither our American system or the European system could accomplish this sort of thing today in a centralized fashion, for both procedural reasons and cultural ones (aka midterms, judges, or extra-judicial recourse is inevitable).
Though that’s also where the historical lens comes in. My note about Hamilton is really a (small) optimistic point: at some point in the past, these things were possible in both places. Why? Because there was incredibly broad alignment about the scope of the problem and the levers necessary to address it. The alignment itself actually reduces the necessity of pulling some of them!
> “Europe position is different it faces a potential poly crisis (Russian aggression, immigration due to climate change / wars, dormant NATO, energy problems for some etc…). Europe will need to respond in a decentralised way because a centralised approach at this point is not possible or part of its design.”
Europe basically has all the same issues as America, PLUS these issues you note, PLUS weaker financial/currency markets, PLUS a more fractious polity. My pessimism there is much deeper and — and an emigrant from the region — it makes me sadder to watch things unravel. I hope it works for those who are there and serious about fixing things. Mostly, I encourage people to come to America :)
I get it. Will scope out my position on Europe in more detail in future essays. I lived in America and think it's the best and worst place in the world to live (feature/bug). Living now in Helsinki Finland, you see the best of what society could become.
The question (in my mind) is, can you take a well-functioning society and place and help it grow into a launchpad for humanity? Or do great jumps always come from conflict?
This is a very complex topic. It’s not a line item policy matter. All the things that make manufacturing at a national scale possible were sold off, using US funds to finance the sale. Expertise, infrastructure, trade secrets, training, everything. Even if we could instantly recreate what Wall Street sold off, we’d be decades behind the rest of the world.
People like to believe that US manufacturing was in a leadership position until China came along. But the truth is that we were on our last leg by the early 70s. We had stopped focusing on improved production and had let the banks dictate how things were made. That’s why the Japanese were able to slide into the U.S. market.
As long as the finance sector determines how our manufacturing sector functions, we’re in a hopeless position.
yup, we go into a lot of that. about as complex as it gets.
Really loved this conversation, such a complex problem. Shoutout to DUST, those guys rule. One thing that popped into my head while listening (still have to read the original essay) was that even if we could begin re-aligning policy to industrialize...and somehow we convinced labor that they should show up to the factory...and capital was willing to come in...I feel like we end up getting squeezed on raw materials at some point if it starts working. I'm thinking mainly about electronics and rare metals, but I think the same would be true for pretty much anything.
I think Conrad said it well at the end that we need to remember the end goal should be to create prosperity for the people. We’re in a doom spiral with lack of skills and increased career expectations intersecting with less opportunity and more automation. I really hope more crazy people just go for it and start making more things, because it's awesome and it's important and it's rewarding.
Amen
Excellent! I enjoyed that. Comprehensive. Thanks.
Glad you enjoyed and thanks for listening!
Great conversation really appreciated. I've spent the last six months looking at the demographics and data of China. As usual, it's so much more complicated than people portray. I'm going to read Conrad's essays because it feels like Conrad's done a similar job on the US system and I need to catch up. I made it all the way through to the end of the podcast, but I was debating when Conrad got assassinated and on which step. It is probably a good idea that he can't run.
I want to dive deeper into how Conracd portrayed Europe, because the podcast puts it in a pretty bad light. But again, the devil's in the detail. Or perhaps to quote the ending "winning is an option not a default".
Thanks Colin! As you note in the piece you just published:
> “However, growing industrial capacity is super hard. America has the capital, but does it really, really want to go back to building “hard things”.
It's daunting and (somewhat) depressing, even for the natural optimists of the world to consider the true scope of the problem. I think it’s a fun thought exercise to just go through the endless laundry list of problems and imagine waving a magic wand to make them vanish. In reality, neither our American system or the European system could accomplish this sort of thing today in a centralized fashion, for both procedural reasons and cultural ones (aka midterms, judges, or extra-judicial recourse is inevitable).
Though that’s also where the historical lens comes in. My note about Hamilton is really a (small) optimistic point: at some point in the past, these things were possible in both places. Why? Because there was incredibly broad alignment about the scope of the problem and the levers necessary to address it. The alignment itself actually reduces the necessity of pulling some of them!
> “Europe position is different it faces a potential poly crisis (Russian aggression, immigration due to climate change / wars, dormant NATO, energy problems for some etc…). Europe will need to respond in a decentralised way because a centralised approach at this point is not possible or part of its design.”
Europe basically has all the same issues as America, PLUS these issues you note, PLUS weaker financial/currency markets, PLUS a more fractious polity. My pessimism there is much deeper and — and an emigrant from the region — it makes me sadder to watch things unravel. I hope it works for those who are there and serious about fixing things. Mostly, I encourage people to come to America :)
I get it. Will scope out my position on Europe in more detail in future essays. I lived in America and think it's the best and worst place in the world to live (feature/bug). Living now in Helsinki Finland, you see the best of what society could become.
The question (in my mind) is, can you take a well-functioning society and place and help it grow into a launchpad for humanity? Or do great jumps always come from conflict?