The insights on American and Chinese industry / tech are undercut by the generic stereotypical “Europeans are smug and backward-looking” comments. A bit disappointing that someone who spends a ton of time analyzing two complex societies (China and the US) falls into Reddit-tier caricature on a third.
The attitude here is quite astounding, seeing how any criticism of the author or this piece is seen as some sort of reductionism of his views and european smugness (?!?), all the while the author reduces an entire nation (Germany in this case) to the anecdote of a Georgian mass murderer, probably one of the most ruthless and diabolical people that ever existed, so yeah, very balanced discussion here.
Indeed, it seems that the gap that is present politically between America and Europe is to some extent also playing out in the individual, even in the tech scene. This is a little alarming to me, as the idea of an alliance can break down on the political level and be repaired in the new cycle of elections, that's OK.
But if an individual American really thinks Europeans are as smug as described in this article, or if Europeans really think the way this article describes, there is a more concerning, deeper issue with the worldview of these historically well-aligned peoples.
I’m responding to comments like this in the article:
So I am betting that the US and China are more compelling forces for change. Stalin was fond of telling a story from his experience in Leipzig in 1907, when, to his astonishment, 200 German workers failed to turn up to a socialist meeting because no ticket controller was on the platform to punch their train tickets, citing this experience as proof of the hopelessness of Germanic obedience. Could anyone imagine Chinese or Americans being so obedient?
This isn’t a serious analysis of German culture. It’s perfectly fine to argue that certain countries are economically or industrially problematic, but when you throw in comments like this, it really doesn’t help your argument.
And I’m not from Europe, but I have lived here for years. The constant clueless comments by my fellow North Americans about the somehow monolithic entity of “Europe” are irritating.
This is not really fair, the story is never explicitly discounted as hyperbole in the article and follows a range of other more mellow criticisms of europe. Also, directly following this quote, is the question: "Could anyone imagine Chinese or Americans being so obedient?".
None of this points to the story being out of place, and since the author specializes in serious analysis of china's relation with america, and the author brings up europe, its fair to assume that they included this story as a relevant criticism of europe.
In that regard, its indeed not of the same quality as the analyses of china or american culture.
"I have a hard time squaring the poor prospects of Europe over the next decade with the smugness that Europeans have for themselves. I spent most of the summer in Copenhagen. There’s no doubt that quality of life in most European cities is superb, especially for what I care about: food, opera, walkable streets, access to nature. But a decade of low economic growth is biting. European prices and taxes can be so high while salaries can be so low."
This particular kind of American perspective on Europe always falls into the same trap: Not understanding a world where economic performance is _not_ the be-all-and-end-all, not understanding the connection between the benefits of such a world (things that consider externalities - not individuals - in order to exist) with the costs of such a world (taxes).
There's nothing wrong with either perspective, rather its the case that the European perspective is different. That's not to say that Europeans are right, or that criticism flowing from Europe to America is justified, but it should at least be acknowledged that pitching two players in a competition that one of the players has less interest in competing on, is misguided.
The issue is not that it's used as a measure, it's that the thing economic performance is supposed to serve as a proxy for - the general health and stability of a society - is then completely ignored. Homelessness, mental illness and violence are objectively more pronounced in American culture than they are in European culture.
I spot checked some of this and from what I can find, the median salary in London is about $12k more than Mississippi, and the median house price in London is about $100k less than California.
Bear in mind that obviously the mean salary in London is going to be far higher than the median (the finance industry will skew it), while I'm not sure that's as extreme as Mississippi. Additionally median salaries reflect a lot of service jobs and similar labour. Dubai has a lower median wage than either London or Mississippi, but people don't think of it as economically broken.
Comparing California (an extremely large state that I presume has cheaper housing outside major urban areas) to a city seems a bit of a poor comparison.
I don't disagree that the UK has high energy costs.
If you’re trying to do a rebuttal, saying that wages are slightly higher than Mississippi and house prices are slightly lower than Cali doesn’t refute anything, it just serves to make the example more extreme and concrete. Look at house prices in Mississippi in relation to their income and then compare the same ratio for Cali and for London.
I'm not sure why we're doing states vs cities. Jackson (the largest city in Mississippi) has a population of 150k. If I find a non-commuter belt town in the UK with a size of 150k, then the house prices will be dramatically lower. An analysis of London house prices needs to take into account that major urban areas in general command a premium (for reasons other than the ability to earn more).
If you compare SF or LA to London, then you'll find:
City | Median Wage | Median House Price | Ratio
SF | 104k | $1.5m | 14.42
London | 67k | $890k | 13.28
LA | 73k | $1.1m | 15.07
London ends up being slightly more affordable despite lower salaries.
The whole analogy was a bit meaningless - it wasn't an apples to apples comparison. The writer mixed geographic and demographic scales to make a point that could just as well be about the unaffordability of large cities.
That’s right if the quote is net of income tax, but that wasn’t clear. While we’re on the subject we should include the 20% VAT (delta 5-10% sales tax in the states) which is the most regressive tax on the poor there is.
Roughly the same with sales tax, it's just 1/3rd of that number.
> But buy a £50k Rolex and yes there is vat.
This is wildly ignorant of how less fortunate people live. They are hit with VAT on many daily expenses. Ignoring that fact and "tsk tsk"ing them for being frivolous is the [British] way.
For purposes of this discussion, I believe VAT is roughly uniform across the EU + UK and some other European jurisdictions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I did update the comment to limit the critique to the UK.
> Dubai has a lower median wage than either London or Mississippi, but people don't think of it as economically broken.
Dubai isn’t sold as a place to belong long-term. Most people move there knowing it’s temporary.
The Bay Area is drifting in the same direction too with the increased cost of living around here. (but the same could be said about most big cities, maybe?)
Dubai is absolutely economically broken lol. The city was built on cheap foreign slave labor. And the luxurious amenities of the city are only for the wealthy royal and foreigners. Their main export besides oil is the illusion of a thriving metropolis
The example I like to use to demonstrate how broken labor vs. service costs are in the UAE is to compare the price of a Big Mac meal to the price of a standard manual car wash (closer to detailing tbh).
In the UAE, a Big Mac meal costs approximately 35 AED ($10). On the other hand, a manual car wash - approx. 1-2 hours of labor - can cost you around 20 AED.
In other words, you could get almost two manual car washes for the price of a Big Mac.
(1) the middle class (and above) who have money to spend on services
(2) the migrant working class, the bulk of whom send every last extra penny back home as remittances to support family
The second class of people are not considered as a market for the majority of services in the UAE. In the case of food, when they do eat out, they frequent traditional, low cost/quality establishments.
As for why a Big Mac costs that much, labor definitely doesn’t have much to do with it. My impression is that prices continued to get pushed up as long as sales didn’t take a hit, which means it’s mostly pure profit.
Keep in mind that the median salary isn’t that high. Without looking it up, I would guess it’s approx $25k USD/year, but I haven’t lived there in a while.
Compare the housing costs of London to the housing costs of San Francisco and then swap out those Bay Area salaries with your “slightly above Mississippi” wages and you’ll see why London looks so broken to people used to LA/SF/NY.
London doesn't have the income level of Mississippi, although that might be true for the UK average. I'd say that the UK may be "seriously broken", but not more so than other post-industrial countries, including the US (or France, or Japan). It's just broken in different ways. E.g. life expectancy in the UK is significantly higher than in America even though they were the same in the '80s. Education levels (and measures such as literacy profficiency and skills etc.) are also significantly better in the UK than in the US. Somewhat tongue in cheek, Americans are richer but they don't seem to be putting their money to good use, as Brits are better educated and live longer.
There are differences, but this is oversimplified, and market is “mostly” working. You need more money in California, for transportation, for health care. The standard is bigger houses (bigger everything) in Cali. Life might be richer, in some ways more pleasant, in London (it’s not weather though), including shorter flights to many interesting places.
From my experience the ratio of savings was similar, but the ppp of course favored US for absolute numbers.
We invented money as a way of distributing scares resources. When there is housing going empty while people live on the streets in tents with no running water, no electricity, no sewage, one has to realize that something's gone wrong.
Countries like Indonesia have banned foreigners from owning land altogether. You can apparently still own property through land-lease agreements and other arrangements, but not the land. I think they've cracked down on illegal rentals too.
House prices are only "out of wack" in areas with poor social housing programs.
Housing in Vienna is still affordable, only due to their very successful public housing programs. Public housing can be both beautiful and highly affordable if you want it to be, it's not like we don't know how to make good quality homes with lovely public amenities. It's mostly developers that want to skim on everything while selling it at the highest cost possible.
Poor system if this is the outcome: unaffordability.
I am interested in what is working in Vienna when “housing problem” is what almost every city in “the West” has or thinks it has.
To me it seems to be a combination of
- wealth inequality (eg 20/30 trillion dollars was printed and furloughed out in Covid, which funnels its way up to the holders of the most assets, seeing asset price inflation but no attempt to tax back the money printed). Repeat on different scales for unfair tax systems and poor infrastructure and and and
- urban planning (we think the ideal city is dense using seven storey or so apartment buildings and fairly aggressive anti-car (ie far less parking than seems possible) with better public transport and lots of pedestrian access. This describes almost no cities
- mortgages and other pro house incentives. You want house price inflation for decade after decade, just allow people to borrow a greater ratio against their salary — and allow married women into the workplace. Suddenly turning a mortgage limit of 2.5 x a man’s salary into 5x a dual couples salary. People bid up prices, forcing more couples to have two salaries to compete. And companies don’t have to increase salary to compensate … people combine salaries and go deeper into debt. Hell if you only had one policy weapon, forcing 2.5 borrowing against one highest paid persons salary is not a bad one. You won’t get re-elected however.
Real estate prices are out of whack everywhere. Even in places with no good jobs, low population density, and rapid depopulation, real estate prices are increasing exponentially. There are no market forces in play anymore.
Nobody will admit that the housing is overpriced, so they would have to be forced to do so.
This is terrible for normal people, and slightly bad for the investors, but only a crisis or organized government action can reset the damage done by decades of investment in already existing buildings.
The wealth inequality in the U.K. is very genratioanly skewed, mainly from the source of that wealth (housing and final salary pensions) which is no longer available to younger people.
The core issue is that most major businesses are ultimately owned directly or indirectly abroad, largely in America, with some tapping by London-based intermediaries.
Supermarkets and shopping centres, national assets (e.g., water) the story is the same. Then there's Amazon et al.
Profit generated in this country is by and large not spent here, and is certainly not taxed adequately.
This causes inequality by short-circuiting redistributive measures, either local economic multipliers or government spending.
What gains are felt are concentrated in service sectors which facilitate global capital, concentrated in London. See OP's thoughts on legalistic societies.
It compares to inequality in England before the US was a thing, in the same way. Small elite benefiting from global plunder, vast inequality internally.
The British Empire didn't actually end. There was a hostile takeover by Washington at the end of WW2.
> while in the US you see automated car washes, in the uk most car washes are Albanians n other immigrants etc
Er what? I moved away from the UK in 2007 but even then the only place I or my parents washed a car was the ubiquitous petrol station automated car wash.
I can only think of one automated wash in my UK town, and well over 10 "Albanian" hand washes. Personally I go to the Albanians every time - they take pride in what they're doing, handle the vehicle with care and do a far, far better job than an auto wash.
No idea where OP is based but like most suggestions about the UK or London online it's bullshit. Most petrol stations have the same automated car washes they've always had. If you want your car hand washed there are lots of people doing that too, as there always have been. Like all places, the UK and/or London has plenty of issues including serious ones - but I'd still pick it over anywhere in the US regardless of salary differences.
Conversely, I've no idea where you or the parent has the idea that the UK is full of automated car washes and the OP is talking bullshit. I live in London and can think of a only a handful of the old fashioned automatic car washes.
Whereas I can get a hand carwash at pretty much any supermarket car park I land on. From a guy with a bucket and trolley to a full team of four going at it with a power wash. Tesco, Sainsbury's, wherever.
The Albanian angle feels loaded, but it's true that many of the employees do seem to be recent immigrants.
I don't see much point denying this reality, it feels a bit like trying to argue there's always been high streets full of betting shops, charity shops, vape stores and American candy shops.
London is an odd one as space is limited and the hand wash places can pop up anywhere quite easily. If I look at the more suburban place I'm from most petrol stations still have the automated ones (contactless payment now instead of the tokens). And most of the larger supermarkets there that have petrol stations still have the automated car washes too.
Yes, it is unimaginable that the UK has replaced most of their automated car washes with immigrants washing cars manually. I've been back there and I've still family there, it's not that different "on the ground" as it were, despite the big political changes.
One of the best books I read this year. I think a lot of HN readers will like it. A really balanced take on China that also digs deep into the perennial question of “why can’t we build big infrastructure projects in the US?” that comes up here quite often.
Well of course, and the book digs a little into the history as well, and what changed around the 1960s/70s. There is a long section on Robert Moses, for example. He draws a lot of parallels between modern China and the US in the 19th and early 20th centuries - totally different political systems, but similar “breakneck” ability to build.
It also defies easy summaries, but my biggest takeaways were that 1) the CCP really doesn't care about the costs any of its policies (one-child, zero COVID, etc) impose on its citizenry, and 2) that the CCP is actively preparing China for a world where it's entirely cut off from the West, because it realizes that's the price to pay for invading Taiwan.
+1 biggest takeaway from me was that China / Asian societies emphasize process knowledge, which does not seem to be the case for U.S. tech in my working experience.
> If the Bay Area once had an impish side, it has gone the way of most hardware tinkerers and hippie communes.
Woz had that (still does). He was smart enough to take his winnings and bail. I think that many in SV can't fathom why, but I suspect I know exactly why.
I do remember the tech community as being full of humor and whimsy. I miss that.
I agree. At first I briefly skimmed it and thought it was going to be a puff piece on China's AI efforts (unfair of me), but a couple paragraphs caught me and I read the whole thing. I'm glad I did.
Hard disagree. How many paragraphs of fawning over the unique culture of the Bay Area must I endure before he arrives at the point?
Such gems as
> I like SF house parties, where people take off their shoes at the entrance and enter a space in which speech can be heard over music, which feels so much more civilized than descending into a loud bar in New York. It’s easy to fall into a nerdy conversation almost immediately with someone young and earnest.
In the thread "Roomba maker goes bankrupt, Chinese owner emerges" [1], I wrote about China'a hardware capability now going far beyond what US can imagine. In Dan's article;
>A rule of thumb is that it takes five years from an American, German, or Japanese automaker to dream up a new car design and launch that model on the roads; in China, it’s closer to 18 months.
Not only is China 3 - 5 times faster in terms of product launches, they would have launch it with a production scale that is at least double the output of other auto marker. If you were to put capacity into the equation as well, China is an order of magnitude faster than any competing countries, at half the cost if not even lower.
Every single year since 2022 China has added more solar power capacity than the entire US solar capacity. And they are still accelerating, with the current roadmap and trend they could install double the entire US solar power capacity in a single year by 2030.
CATL's Sodium Ion Battery is already in production and will be used by EVs and large scale energy storage by end of this year. The cost advantage of these new EV would mean there is partially zero chance EU can compete. And if EU are moaning about it now, they cant even imagine what is coming.
Thanks to AI pushing up memory and NAND price. YMTC and CXMT now have enough breathing room to catch up. If they play this right, I wont be surprised by 2035 30 - 40% of DRAM and NAND will be made by the two Chinese firms. Although judging from their past execution record I highly doubt this will happen, but expect may be 10-15% maximum.
Beyond tech, there are also other part of manufacturing that China has matched or exceeded rest of the world without being noticed by many. Lab Grown Diamond, Cosmetic Production, Agricultural Machinery, Reinforced glass etc. Their 10 years plan on agricultural improvement also come to fruition especially in terms of fruit and veg. I wont be surprised if they no long need US soy bean within 10 years time.
All in all a lot of things in China has passed escape velocity and there is no turning back. China understand US better than US understand themselves, and US doesn't even have any idea about China. I think the quote from the article sums this up pretty well.
"Beijing has been preparing for Cold War without eagerness for waging it, while the US wants to wage a Cold War without preparing for it.".
Whenever the topic of "China Speed" comes up, I feel the need to add that speed is not a strategy but an outcome of the previous four decades of relentless hard work: https://dilemmaworks.com/on-china-speed
That's a very important point that most people missed. China spent decades to achieve the current status. Especially the investment in education, i.e. Human Resource, the most effective ROI but need very long term commitment.
Western countries should do the same and do it continuously without consider the economic reward.
Indeed. What we need to do in Europe is spend the next three decades building the industrial, social, technological environment that gives China the advantages it has today, and enables "China Speed". I am worried that we will not do it until after we have gone through a deep crisis, however.
Relentless work, or simply not caring about the people that you need to crunch in order to achieve the outcomes that you want. The western world could also build things fast again and innovate faster, we just seem to value human life a bit more now that we used to...
China doesn't particularly need US soybeans but they're going to have to continue importing soybeans from somewhere (like Brazil or Canada) indefinitely. Like any commodity, soybeans are (somewhat) fungible. China doesn't have the right combination of arable land and cheap fertilizer necessary to be self-sufficient in soy at an economically viable cost. Of course, China's population is now declining so ironically that could increase their food security in a few decades.
Along ops reasoning, PRC will find domestic slop to feed pigs. There's already soybean replacement program in the pipelines, i.e. synthetic science + cheap power = future industrial substitutes. Because soybean conundrum is arable land (all sorts of soybean yield, lack of GMO, small plot farmer complexity mixed in), but pork prices fall under broad food (national) security so expect autarky > comparative advantage / cost when domestic pipeline in place. Like there's no reason for PRC to pay US soybean premium over Brazil, but they would because economic viability not as important.
TBH Anything strategic, expect PRC to adopt energy-to-matter to substitutes when the teach stack is figured out. Or at least have as less economic backup, i.e. PRC has unlimited cheap fertilizer (was top fertilizer producer via coal gasification) just more emission heavy. They're on way to displace all oil imports with coal to olefin/liquidation and EV. HQ steel via simply hammering energy into mid ores. All signs point they're moving towards strategic domestic abundance / autarky where they can.
that's obvious that some country with 1.5B working people will have edge in some niches, and will demonstrate tremendous growth from the bottom where they were 20 years ago.
But for global picture, if we are comparing Western World: US+Canada+EU vs China in technological domination, the picture is likely not super-clear and more complex analysis is required. Even if we consider manufacturing output, where China is supposedly global leader, we see it is 5.5T for Western world vs 4.6T for China (according to my brief google searching).
>we see it is 5.5T for Western world vs 4.6T for China (according to my brief google searching).
I would bet the unit volume of manufacturing with those 4.6T is more than double that of 5.5T. And those 5.5T likely have some very high value, high margin leading edge equipment.
Not only is China catching up to those sectors, they are continuing their momentum to accelerate and expand in other low value market. They key here isn't to maximise profits, it is to maximise control.
If Trade is war, which is the fundamental of principle of what "Art of War" is about, then I dont see how the west could win this war without some very drastic changes.
> I would bet the unit volume of manufacturing with those 4.6T is more than double that of 5.5T. And those 5.5T likely have some very high value, high margin leading edge equipment.
sure, and what's your point? My opinion is that high margin leading edge equipment is more interesting direction than low cost low tech produce.
They keep increasing and increasing the level of what they can produce. Within a couple of decades they will overtake TSMC, ASML, etc. If you're thinking about how the west still does all the design, they will produce their own computer architectures (Loongarch is outpacing RISC-V) and chips and operating systems. IIRC they're now able to make their own chips and chip-making equipment at a decade-old technology level and that's rapidly catching up.
Not really, unless you mean in performance of available chips.
Notably, Loongarch and the company behind it have been around for much longer, and thus have a head start. But it is ultimately a single company's ISA.
As often the case with Dan's letters, a well balanced take on many issues. I particularly appreciated the thoughts on AI and (what I read) the undertone of infrastructure being the real differentiator between the US effort and China. We'll see how it plays out this year. "May you live in exciting times" etc.
> I believe that Silicon Valley possesses plenty of virtues. To start, it is the most meritocratic part of America.
Oh come on, this is so untrue. Silicon Valley loves credentialism and networking, probably more than anywhere else. Except the credentials are the companies you’ve worked for or whether you know some founder or VC, instead of what school you went to or which degrees you have.
I went to a smaller college that the big tech firms didn’t really recruit from. I spent the first ~5 years of my career working for a couple smaller companies without much SV presence. Somehow I lucked into landing a role at a big company that almost everyone has definitely heard of. I didn’t find my coworkers to necessarily be any smarter or harder working than the people I worked with previously. But when I decided it was time to move on, companies that never gave me the time of day before were responding to my cold applies or even reaching out to _me_ to beg me to interview.
And don’t get me started on the senior leadership and execs I’ve seen absolutely run an entire business units into the ground and lose millions of dollars and cost people their jobs, only to “part ways” with the company, then immediately turn around and raise millions of dollars from the same guys whose money they just lost.
I guess I'll ask since you strongly disagree and ignoring the fact this is very reductionist: In your opinion, what is the most meritocratic part of America?
Isn’t the obvious answer that many would refute the premise of meaningful regional variation? In which case the claim isn’t that somewhere else is that place but rather than all places are substantially equivalent on this difficult to measure concept (or difference is unknown).
Meritocracy is not a single thing. Regions do not have a uniform relationship with merit, as they are made of many different communities all living amongst each other. "Which is the most meritocratic part of America" is not even an especially meaningful question.
I think the OP was making the point that it isn't meritocratic, at least that is how it read to me: they thought people where not meaningfully different in skill level (the people at the exclusive company being comparable to everywhere else) and that where you worked was the new way to find the 'in' people, rather than what university you graduated from (saying they had job offers based purely on getting the job at the exclusive company).
You could argue that getting a job at X or Y company by itself conveys some level of skill - but if we are honest, that is just version of saying you went to Harvard.
There's lots of cliques everywhere in life, and various ways to show status, SV is definitely not immune to that.
Yes, that is what OP is saying, I'm just not very convinced. Primarily because his sample size is quite small – he says the people in his smaller, non-SV jobs were just as competent as those in the SV company, but that could mean a number of things that are not "SV isn't meritocratic". For example, it could just be that his previous colleagues were more competent than the actual national/global average, which seems probable.
meritocratic means "judgement on merit (aka skill)"
and the story told is "no judgement on skill, only on being in-group. It's just the in-group is caused by previous employment and not birth-right/nationality/etc"
note that the first chunk of the piece spends time to analogize SV to the CCP, in terms of its willingness to take attacks (of humor).
So, for your quote, a skeptical interpretation of the text may assert the author was merely praising SV in the same fashion one might appraise the party.
I read the whole post. Really revealing - so much analysis but not a single mention of a global system that is reaching a singularity in wealth concentration, and maybe how that might be an important dimension to reflect on. Its like using so many words to deeply analyze the speed differentials in a car race, but not looking up to see that all the drivers are racing towards a brick wall.
Sometimes I wonder if our system evolved the discipline of economics as an incredibly expensive intellectual distraction to pacify the petit bourgeois.
We can read Dan Wang and Tyler Cowen and whoever else to educate ourselves on the idea that {interests aligned with the further concentration of capital} are the real reason why we the people of the middle class can’t afford to buy a home, and actually you should be grateful you have antibiotics and shelf-stable, flavorless tomatoes and Instagram Reels. Your forebears were not so lucky!
You can’t afford to buy a home because the current owners vote to restrict new housing through zoning and expensive regulation on construction permitting, so supply is limited in the places you’re trying to live (a higher income region?).
The government also subsidized mortgages for the prior generation to increase asset values and now that time is up. Subsidized demand = inflation
Finally, you likely want a bigger house than your parents had. And most people want it to be in the cooler area, not somewhere in Iowa where schools are great but restaurants and non-remote jobs are lacking
Supply and demand doesn’t just work in terms of raw housing supply, but in terms of housing that is “on the market”, which is a critical distinction that economists’ arguments deliberately ignore.
In my parents’ generation, it used to be that if you moved or stopped living in a house, you would sell the house in location A and buy a house in location B. Today this would be considered a critical wealth-building error / faux pas. Absenteee landlordism is a new phenomenon, and the fact that we allow to exist is a policy decision constructed to inflate property value (similar to the subsidized mortgages you referenced).
The reason housing is so unaffordable in my city is not because there isn’t enough housing for the people who live here, it’s because I (along with countless other professionals) am given a choice between subsidizing the lifestyle of somebody who literally doesn’t live here if I’m living in old housing stock, or I’m subsidizing the unavoidably high cost of developing new property (and the lifestyle of property developers) if I’m living in new housing stock.
If the balance of households renting vs owning were inverted, housing would be more affordable. I agree that subsidized mortgages helped create this beast. But the superset problem is the financialization of housing, that the American dream stopped being about the picket fence and started being about securing a passive income / rent-seeking on that picket fence. There are many policies that contributed to this problem.
No mainstream economists touch this problem because we’ve become a country of rent-seeking. So right-leaning economists will say we just need to relax regulation (read: increase the profit margin of property developers) and liberal economists will say we need more “affordable housing” (read: remove more housing stock from the market, for the benefit of a few lucky souls), while neither addresses the core problem of putting median housing titles in the hands of median people, which was perfectly normal from the 50s-80s, before our current system crystallized.
In our current system, building marginal housing and reducing regulation more benefits capital (the top 1% of asset holders; the property developers and the people who can afford to subsidize their profits), not the people who actually live here.
> And most people want it to be in the cooler area, not somewhere in Iowa where schools are great but restaurants and non-remote jobs are lacking
This is a fundamental problem. People in big cities are on average richer. That's not just a US thing. People in a Tier 1 city in China have a substantially higher standard of living than people in lower tier cities. There is a very real hierarchy.[1] City tier is determined by size, not income, but income tracks size.
This is the phenomenon that induces over-concentration. Go to the big city and make your fortune, or at least find enough scraps to keep you alive. That's why US homelessness is a rich city thing.
Figuring out how to make mid-sized cities, at the 0.5M to 1M population level work, is something the US currently is not doing well. Those cities have housing, but not jobs.
US Per-capita real income tracked productivity growth until about 1975. After that, productivity continued to climb, but per-capita real income did not. This is why life sucks worse than it used to for everybody but the top 10%.
With AI coming along, productivity is about to get another boost. Maybe a big boost. But will most people benefit from it? Under capitalism as currently implemented, no.
That's the meaning of Sam Altman's “I think that AI will probably, most likely, sort of lead to the end of the world. But in the meantime, there will be great companies created with serious machine learning.”
Universal basic income is not the answer. That's welfare 2.0, leading to high-rises of useless people. Altman doesn't have the answer. Wang doesn't have the answer. They both see the problem coming but suggest no viable solutions.
I agree. The center of capitalism may have shifted to China, but they'll have to deal with (are already) dealing with the same problems and it'll probably happen even faster for them. Instability in the system is only overshadowed by the growing instability in peoples lives. I think most people feel this and the discourse has fundamentally shifted in the west, but these are tectonic and unpredictable forces.
A parting thought: from a geo-political perspective, I understand the purpose of essays like this but like I said I think its losing the forrest for the trees and at great risk.
those articles were written a plenty about the Davos Elite - even precovid. It’s a tad lazy now.
Sure there was some evidence of wealth concentration mattering. But there was also evidence against it (like Jack Ma). Power is still the ring to kiss.
And hopefully it’s very understood to the parent comment and agreers, wealth creation is not zero sum. When something new is created the pie gets bigger. All wealth inequality discourse is driven by that misunderstanding and a lack of building more homes https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001429212...
Maybe your brick wall is the singularity instead and I misread you but I don’t think so.
>but not a single mention of a global system that is reaching a singularity in wealth concentration
that's not the case though and Dan is implicitly addressing this given that China is the subject of a decent chunk of the letter. Wealth in the global system is much more evenly distributed these days. We're much closer to a multi-polar world than we used to be in a long time. A lot of the emerging economies are building middle classes of serious size, it's a whole other world compared to 20 to 30 years ago. The developed world's been mostly stable inequality wise, the only outlier being tech oligarchs in the US but that's hardly a defining feature of the global system.
But globally we're likely living now in the first time in human history when the median human is going to see a drastic increase in their fortunes.
To my surprise I found myself reading the entire rather long piece. His thoughts on AI, San Francisco, China, and other topics, are well worth the time.
I don't care who the next hegemon will be; US or China. But please pray, can these people tell what their next strategy is for the rest of the world after the Cold War ends. Will the next regime advance sciences further after whichever side wins the Cold War? Can't that be done without the war? US has been hegemon since last 5 or so decades; has it worked out best even ONLY for the Americans if not for the rest of the world. I will ask a very obvious question taught as a intuition pump by Daniel Dennett, "Then What? Then What? Then What?". Do these blob forces have post-Cold War steps figured out for the best of humanity, if not for whole of humanity but a national subset.
from my understanding, US strategy "for the world" is "you sell me things, I sell you dollars, do democracy or else" - while best China guess seems to be "build business, together, don't push your agenda on others or else" (as with anything, these will change over several decades tho)
but main divide seems to form on "ngo vs government" lines, imo - and ironically the exact opposite way of the proclaimed "authoritarian China vs USAID america" of the previous decade-or-two. (As always, best path is somewhere in the middle between the two)
the main thing that will happen for sure - globalization, unification into bigger and bigger pieces will continue. Sure, big pieces might go further from each other - but smaller ones will will get closer and closer (unless we all die, of course)
I don't know if it's that hard to figure out, at least in the short-term. China's #1 goal should be to keep the value of their currency stable and push hard on the neoliberal expansionist path. If the United States' financialized economy starts to sag, this is China's opportunity to provide discount stability to the nations that China needs as allies.
Even if it’s a goal, it’s not a plan. The article talks about it, but Biden’s push for manufacturing wasn’t very aggressive, and Trump has basically stopped it. We’ve seen a loss in manufacturing jobs from tariffs and Trump idiotically deported Korean engineers working in local battery production plants. Simply protecting our existing companies (which are not very efficient, see shipbuilders) is not even close to enough to competing
The US doesn't have a plan, it has a framework. The framework allows it to be nimble in a way that centralized economies (like China) can never match. My money's on the US out-competing everyone else in the long run.
I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or if you are serious. The USA’s framework is to just wish for things to happen and then be surprised when those things don’t happen. There is basically no executing plan beyond grifting money to a few corporations because they supported the president during the election.
Seriously, and we have one of the most centrally planned economies in existence, it's just controlled by the elites rather than through democratic norms as it was during the new deal coalition.
The "US plan," is driven by the executive office. That is to say, the by the US president.
Insofar as there is any plan, the current officeholder's priorities are to project the appearance of personal power on television. If you're wondering what's going on strategically, don't go thinking that there's some grand plan, or even an intention to benefit the United States in the long term. There are some people in the cabinet who are thinking long term, but that's not universal, and that's not what they're selected for. Every action that is taken is to satisfy the president's narcissism and ego in the present moment. You have to understand the "US plan" in this light for anything coming out of the executive office to make sense.
It all falls into place if you contemplate the possibility that there is no US.
There's stock market bros, kill people bros, government welfare bros and some mega business bros.
None of them want to know anything beyond my kids go to private school, get nepo baby job.
This is what humans are capable of - not just in USA, as a species. USA's 'plan' or rather inevitability is to fall apart. China will be the next power and it'll also fall apart, like USSR fell apart and USA is falling apart for the world to see.
Maybe in another few thousand years it'll be different, I doubt it. Read Plato's Republic you're above 140 IQ - it spells it all out so nicely that one you grok it, you need not know much of anything else regarding politics.
Too bad it’s not true. China has wanted this for a long long time. They view their relative weakness vs the West as humiliating and temporary, and want to correct that by any means available.
As a Brit, I struggled to get much interesting out of this considering how many times he mentions "Europe" (in that condescendingly general way that only US folks seem to manage).
He talks about "European" prospects and his trip to Denmark but then cites London as a representative example?
This almost broke my brain it felt so incoherent.
Never mind that (despite my personal wishes) we're not even part of the EU (which I assume is what he means by "Europe"). Surely he knows what an anomaly London is? It's not representative of anything except itself.
Referencing the extreme wage dispersion and severe housing pressure of London in a rant about Europe in general is a completely pointless endeavour.
He did say one thing I agree with. If you like good food, rich culture and great surroundings, "Europe" is indeed a lovely place to be for the most part.
Maybe I'll just keep that as my takeaway. It's too early in the year for doom and gloom anyway
There is something very irritating seeing someone dismiss someone else on the internet using condescending therapy speak 'Thats Ok', nevermind the fact that calling him out as some ignorant Chinese guy while China has hundreds of cultures and languages, as if a Chinese person couldn't comprehend... Europe.
The way to respect isn’t through shaming people into it. It’s through demonstration of value, in this case understanding of nuance.
Instead we get an application of external logic and values which can’t be used to properly reason about the entity they’re applied to.
There’s no need for frustration. We take the stoic approach here. It’s OK. You are a product of your environment. Everything you’ve ever experienced told you this is the way to act.
All you’re bringing to the discussion is “my feelings are hurt”. And you’re putting the onus to fix that on me.
You have the power to change your paradigm, but you refuse to. Others have to see things through your lens, you won’t have the flexibility to change yours for a moment.
Meanwhile I’ve started with a plausible explanation of why someone sees things differently.
From the get go, I had more willingness to understand than you did.
Europe and China are quite different, historically and culturally. It would make sense that people from the two regions wouldn't know about each other. The world is full of detail. As someone who's lived in both the west and asia I'm still surprised by little differences I see every week.
China also has many different cultures, languages and so on for the over 1.4 billion people who live there. Why would the “nuance” of Europe be “lost” on a Chinese person?
China mostly has a single national identity, and provincial differences are way too nuanced to be mapped in the same way that country differences in Europe would be. It would be like trying to get Americans to understand that "Henan man" is a meme similar to the "Florida man" meme.
No, guangxi isn’t even technically a province (another weirdness), but having been to guangxi a few times (Guilin, Liuzhou, and Nanning), I don’t think anyone thinks much of it beyond it’s beautiful karst and southern culture. Anyways, there is actually a wiki article on henan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Henan_sentiment
double ironically, your comment precisely answers your question
the two of you operate on different scale of unification - what you see as "many different cultures", chinese and americans see as "a single country". What they see as "Europe pulling in many directions" - you might see as independent national interests
perhaps the best way to recognize the attitude is to think what you feel about subsections of your country - while Scotland/England divide is common, it's rarer to hear in what Yorkshire differs from the Cornwall; and I bet not many people would guess what beef is there between french citizen from Normandy and from Nice
it is this kind of scale that allows China to build transmission lines through the whole country's diameter. It is that kind of scale that made americans scream at each other because of abortion high court decision - while said decision simply said "let states decide"
it's a lot of difference, and there's a lot of nuances "on both sides" - but simply of a different kind
> The nuance of 40 different cultures on a small continent might be lost on him.
I don’t know about the author in particular, but Americans are generally aware of the “nuanced” European history of near constant war between rival nations, states, factions, and religions.
It's pretty clear he meant Europe as the continent, which London is a part of.
It's very similar to "Europeans" broadly generalizing the US as one homogenous country, assuming everyone and everything in Chicago is the same as New York or Dallas.
Source: me, a brit, who has lived and worked in UK and US.
He's a Canadian in America writing about China. He writes about bloc strategic competition. EU+UK is treated as bloc in this context, individual European countries are generally irrelevant alone.
> Never mind that (despite my personal wishes) we're not even part of the EU (which I assume is what he means by "Europe").
Nah, Americans aren’t particularly interested in which Europeans are offended by being identified as “Europeans” this week. If we say “Europe” without qualification we’re probably just talking about the continent. (And no, we don’t even use the word “continent” as a distinction within Europe, except when referring to hotel breakfasts.)
Americans don’t really have much of a concept of what European identity is, and we don’t really care (other than being grateful for a few decades of relative peace after 1,000 or so years of near constant war).
It was really poorly written in hindsight. I didn't mean for it to come across as bitter/accusatory as it does and you don't deserve to read people talking random jabs at you when browsing HN comments, I'm sorry
Since I’ve lived in the UK before, I will say that yes it is not the same as continental Europe, but culturally, socially, and economically it is deeply tied into Europe, is European. One could say the same thing about Ireland—except the majority of Ireland is in the EU. Does Europe stop at the border of Northern Ireland?
He’s writing about China and US. Sure, you can call Europe more diverse, but still it makes sense to draw some generalizations, and I don’t think he’s far from the mark (having myself lived in EU, UK and US).
Just like San Francisco and Dallas/Texas (from his article) are very different in the US, we should expect lot of differences in Europe (as others mentioned, he clubs UK with EU). Housing is a general problem for all major cities though, not sure why you think it is unique to London in the whole continent. Stockholm, Paris, Dublin, Lisbon to name a few, are pretty bad for housing in their own unique ways. Certainly shouldn't be "breaking your brain".
> Just like San Francisco and Dallas/Texas (from his article) are very different in the US, we should expect lot of differences in Europe
Dallas and San Francisco are both English speaking cities with a shared recent history of being part of the same nation. Most cities in Europe are as close as New York and Mexico City - Dallas and San Francisco is probably more analogous to Milan and Naples (different cultures, different histories, but now speak the same language and are part of the same nation).
I've been convinced for years now of 90% of what Dan Wang wrote here about China, though I don't even have 20% of his talent in writing it up in a coherent way. Nor do I have enough on-the-ground experience in the country, nor the surname, to make me credible.
During all this time I've tried to think of a way to invest in this belief in a monetary way, but I've failed to come up with anything. Chinese stocks? Foreigners' holdings will likely be worthless when the slightest crisis happens. Then what is left? Without going and living there, I'm not sure. Has anyone thought about this?
he makes enough odd claims about cities and countries in the beginning that i can only assume aren't really meant to be taken seriously, so i'm at a bit of a loss for how i should be reading this
Great read. I listened to Dan on Tyler Cowen’s podcast and found him to be a very interesting thinker. He has the air of someone who is a lot more intellectually honest than a lot of our pundits (Tyler is pretty good though, he’s not that target of this comment)
One of my intentions for this coming year is to critically examine and (if appropriate) alter or dispel some preconceptions I have. To that end, I'm curious about this part:
> You don’t have to convince the elites or the populace that growth is good or that entrepreneurs could be celebrated. Meanwhile in Europe, perhaps 15 percent of the electorate actively believes in degrowth. I feel it’s impossible to convince Europeans to act in their self interest.
Can someone elaborate on how growth is aligned with the general interest? To my mind, although growth could _theoretically_ lead to a "lifting all boats" improvement across the board, in practice it inevitably leads to greater concentration of wealth for the elite while the populace deals with negative externalities like pollution, congestion, and advertizing. Degrowth, on the other hand, would directly reduce those externalities; and, if imposed via progressive taxation, would have further societal benefits via funded programs.
I'd very much like to hear the counter-argument. It would be pleasant and convenient to believe that growth and industry are Good, Actually, so that I needn't feel guilty for contributing to them or for furthering my own position - but (sadly!) I can't just make myself believe something without justification.
> Can someone elaborate on how growth is aligned with the general interest?
Empirically, the past 200 years have seen high growth globally, and human well being has improved massively as a result. Life expectancy has skyrocketed, infant death, hunger have gone down to near zero, literacy has gone up, work is much more comfortable, interesting and rewarding, etc. But at a more fundamental level, our material quality of life is that of literal kings. The 1st decile poorest people in the US or Europe have much better living conditions than a king of 500 years ago. We are so lucky to benefit from this, yet we completely forgot that fact. You complain about congestion and advertizing, but with degrowth you would complain about hunger and dying from cold during winter.
>But at a more fundamental level, our material quality of life is that of literal kings.
This cannot be overstated. To wit, a Honda Accord (or equivalent mid-range car of today) is objectively superior to a Rolls Royce from the 90s in terms of amenities, engine power/efficiency, quietness, build quality, safety, etc. The same is true for quality-of-life improvements across a vast swath of consumer goods, and therefore consumer lifestyles.
Without growth, it's unlikely we'd see those improvements manifest. Carefully consider the lifestyle of someone living several decades ago. Would you honestly want to live such a lifestyle yourself? That's where degrowth likely leads. As the article says, "I feel it’s impossible to convince Europeans to act in their self interest. You can’t even convince them to adopt air conditioning in the summer."
> Carefully consider the lifestyle of someone living several decades ago. Would you honestly want to live such a lifestyle yourself?
Sure, I lived it, and it was very pleasant at the time and in many ways better than now in retrospect. e.g. always-on access to infinite content engines like YouTube, TikTok, X, Facebook, etc. is probably a net negative, both for individuals and society. I wouldn't want to go back a century or more and give up air conditioning, dishwashers, washing machines, air travel, electric lights. But a few decades, sure, in a heartbeat.
I agree, 30 years ago a working man doing 40 hours a week in a factory could still support a family on one income and expect to own a house. We hit a peak 30-40 years ago.
I hear this often, but I think this discounts the fact that this was mostly true for the US/Western Europe at a time where they enjoyed unilateral super-powerism as a result of winning WWII. I'm not sure that kind of prosperity is normal (though I hope it could be).
I'm worried the harsh reality for most humans is that life is often not that easy. And if it is, it won't be for long
But there is still enough wealth for all of those houses to exist. That tells me the world is wealthy enough, but it is in the hands of different people
For all the insightful takes about everything under the Sun, Dan's cynicism and skewed view towards "Europe" are shown in this letter.
It's not that all his takes are wrong, it's the exaggeration, the doom and gloom and a somewhat dismissal or some unsolved personal issues he has with "Europeans".
The irony is not lost that Dan acts as smug and dismissal as he accuses Europeans to be.
Regarding the whole "Degrowth" thing: yes Europe has those and they found their gold in Governmental entities and they entertain the rich. But.. that's exactly what happens in the US too and Dan as knowledge as he is should know this was mostly an American academia export, he just needs to talk with some people in the very same colleges he regularly set foot into.
Also, he should take a hint when he says historically liberal societies have fared much better than autocratic ones even if those are very focused and appear to make progress very quickly. Having a few mega-bilionaires directing what the populace do or not do might not be a smart move as it sounds. We'll see when the AI musical chairs stops.
Btw, Europe has been dead and on the brink of destruction for a few centuries by now. And according to experts the EU is about to collapse 3 or 4 times a year - minimum.
Wealth inevitably concentrates in the hands of the elite no matter the economic conditions. There are plenty of failed states where all the wealth ended up in the hands of warlords and dictators.
It’s something that regularly has to be dealt with in societies separately from the economic situation.
There are those who think massive concentration of wealth is not a problem at all and is just a product of healthy capitalism. Tax is theft, and individual property rights are above all else.
There are others who want some kind of communist revolution, where the entire structure of society and property ownership is changed. The workers should benefit from their work as much as the managers.
Personally, I feel like there's a middle ground to hit. We should be able to make changes to our current system in the US without needing anything too radical.
We have some good examples from the last century, such as trust busting, the New Deal, and the Great Society. These programs made major improvements without changing the country's fundamental economic system or growth trajectory.
In the vibrant capitalist society envisioned by Joseph Schumpeter, all boats are lifted because better businesses replace incumbents, both improving products for the larger society and continually redistributing wealth. In my view, since 2008 my country (the US) has distanced itself from this policy, instead focusing on protecting incumbents for fear of loss of employment. The unpopular policy of bailouts pursued in 2008-2009 and then again during the pandemic has led to a stagnant, top-heavy economy with most of the disadvantages of capitalism and less and less of the upside.
I don't think degrowth is necessary to solve this problem, although I'm sure it has its merits. But I think growth can still occur without the trend toward oligarchic or feudal society, and in fact a society with a vibrant economy would have more growth than we do today.
Believing in growth just means believing that the future will be better than the past.
And believing this, is the single thing keeping the entire world running.
Germany is currently ruining itself because its stagnating economy means that it can not keep up with the rising costs for its pension system and has to increasingly raise more funds from a smaller, population which is seeing little productivity gains.
>Degrowth, on the other hand, would directly reduce those externalities; and, if imposed via progressive taxation, would have further societal benefits via funded programs.
Do you think that Germany will have social benefits at all, when the auto industry collapses. Where is the money coming from?
Economic growth has enabled mass literacy. It has created industrial agriculture, which eliminated hunger for economic reasons in all countries which practice it. Degrowth means turning our back on the single process which caused the greatest increase in human quality of life.
> Narrowness of mind is something that makes me uneasy about the tech world.
> The Bay Area has all sorts of autistic tendencies. Though Silicon Valley values the ability to move fast, the rest of society has paid more attention to instances in which tech wants to break things.
> There’s a general lack of cultural awareness in the Bay Area. It’s easy to hear at these parties that a person’s favorite nonfiction book is Seeing Like a State while their aspirationally favorite novel is Middlemarch.
It's refreshing to read someone addressing this aspect of the Mecca of the tech word.
For the reasons above the tech elites are the ones I trust the less and fear the most when they are involved in national and international politics. And I think the current state of the US is directly caused by the rise of post dot com Silicon Valley.
I've lived in Silicon Valley for exactly 3 days now. Recently moved from the Midwest.
There are two kinds of people in San Jose: locals who are normal folks you'd find anywhere, and techies with the AI brainworm. People who are astonished by the natural beauty of this place, and people who are astonished by an office park because there are Apple and Nvidia logos on it. It's all incredibly weird and I don't like it much.
It is really quite unfortunate that one of the most naturally beautiful places in the world is full of jobs that require sitting inside in front of a computer all day long.
I have nonspecific positive associations with Dan Wang's name, so I rolled my eyes a bit but kept going when "If the Bay Area once had an impish side, it has gone the way of most hardware tinkerers and hippie communes" was followed up by "People aren’t reminiscing over some lost golden age..."
But I stopped at this:
> “AI will be either the best or the worst thing ever.” It’s a Pascal’s Wager
That's not what Pascal's wager is! Apocalyptic religion dates back more than two thousand years and Blaise Pascal lived in the 17th century! When Rosa Luxemburg said to expect "socialism or barbarism", she was not doing a Pascal's Wager! Pascal's Wager doesn't just involve infinite stakes, but also infinitesimal probabilities!
The phrase has become a thought-terminating cliche for the sort of person who wants to dismiss any claim that stakes around AI are very high, but has too many intellectual aspirations to just stop with "nothing ever happens." It's no wonder that the author finds it "hard to know what to make of" AI 2027 and says that "why they put that year in their title remains beyond me."
It's one thing to notice the commonalities between some AI doom discourse and apocalyptic religion. It's another to make this into such a thoughtless reflex that you also completely muddle your understanding of the Christian apologetics you're referencing. There's a sort of determined refusal to even grasp the arguments that an AI doomer might make, even while writing an extended meditation on AI, for which I've grown increasingly intolerant. It's 2026. Let's advance the discourse.
I'm not sure I understand your complaint. Is it that he misuses the term Pascal's Wager? Or more generally that he doesn't extend enough credibility to the ideas in AI 2027?
More the former. Re the latter, it's not so much that I'm annoyed he doesn't agree with the AI2027 people, it's that (he spends a few paragraphs talking about them while) he doesn't appear to have bothered trying to even understand them.
The beginning perfectly embodies the culture in Silicon Valley and touches on a crucial part that I notice when I visit: the complete lack of self expression or as I would put it ZERO drip.
Remove the tech, what does SF contribute to the world wrt culture? Especially when compared to other metropolitan cities: NY, London, LA, Tokyo.
How many musicians, artists, fashion designers from the Valley can you name? Even SF seems to be punching below its weight now that gentrification has forced out the producers, and (as noted in the article) the tech elite seems aggressively uninterested in patronizing art of any kind, be it opera or nightclubs.
I think most people in general have no taste. But taste is also so subjective that it’s hard to meaningfully discuss. Everyone probably thinks they have great taste.
Part of the Silicon Valley ethos (and techie ethos in general) is the rejection of fashion. Comfort over style. Casual over classy.
Even the “stealth wealth” thing that trended for a while seemed to be an expression of this. Casual wear, but really expensive.
Rejection of fashion has always seemed like a fear of failure to me. Trying to dress well means exposing yourself to evaluation, comparison and the possibility of getting it wrong. The traditions and standards of fashion have accumulated over centuries and are fairly resistant to being redefined (especially by rookies), which makes success depend on external criteria and not on personal rules. Rejecting fashion altogether removes the risk of failure.
I think this is reflected in how techies are drawn to the safety of techwear, where fit and color matter less and clothing can be chosen and justified through objective criteria like weather resistance parameters.
I’m sure that’s also a factor. But I do think it’s one of many. Non-techies often take their fashion cues from people they admire. If we assume techies do the same, then they will likely be looking up to people who have largely rejected fashion.
This is such a long letter it would take me probably 3 months to write it. I would have to end my year by September and spend the rest of the year writing the letter.
There are two parts of the Zero Covid policy which actually is a continuous one :
1.At the beginning of the pandemic. It was successful in terms of reducing the death count of population but at the cost of freedom that also widely criticized in Western countries.
2.Because of the early success, the government continued the policy even it was not necessary till close to the end of the Covid. This is one of the biggest policy failure in recent Chinese history. It caused resentment and was exploited by anti-government parties, even partially caused the illegal emigrant wave to the States through south border during 2023, which was reported on mainstream media. Finally it ended due to protests.
Dan Wang's observation about China in his book is mostly accurate, except this part that he has some twisted view on CPP, which is not his fault but CPP's fault.
> Dan Wang's observation about China in his book is mostly accurate, except this part that he has some twisted view on CPP, which is not his fault but CPP's fault.
Give us your take, we're listening. Curious to hear.
Zero-COVID was an absolute disaster. It involved severe human rights violations and caused immense social and economic damage, including unnecessary displacement, homelessness, and even deaths. The number is lower sure, but China had the capacity to do much better
China's statistics on COVID deaths are entirely unreliable. In reality, in all likelihood China was the least successful in its region of East-Asia, less successful than Japan, Korea and Taiwan.
Note that I'm not including the large-scale suffering caused by the way it was executed besides deaths - if you include that, it's beyond any doubt they did worse than the countries mentioned above, and it's not even close.
many people especially those with chronic illnesses died because Zero-COVID blocked access to basic medical care and food. Those deaths were policy-driven and avoidable.
> I believe that Silicon Valley possesses plenty of virtues. To start, it is the most meritocratic part of America. Tech is so open towards immigrants that it has driven populists into a froth of rage. It remains male-heavy and practices plenty of gatekeeping. But San Francisco better embodies an ethos of openness relative to the rest of the country. Industries on the east coast — finance, media, universities, policy — tend to more carefully weigh name and pedigree.
I believe I read that 27% of the founders in the YC Spring 25 class went to an Ivy League school and 40% previously worked at a magnificent 7 company. I'm not saying this is any worse than the east coast, but so much for name and pedigree not mattering.
Northern California is what it always has been: the barrier wall of manifest destiny, where instead of crossing the ocean the pioneers and all subsequent generations stayed to incubate the same incentives, and have been relentlessly in pursuit of the next gold rush. Gold, yellow journalism, semiconductors, personal computing, SaaS, crypto, AI, etc. It's the sink drain attractor of people looking to improve their fortunes in one way or another, but almost always around some kind of bonanza of concentrated opportunity. The concept of it being "meritocratic" is a rephrasing of ideology that's always existed about the region: you too could get rich here. But I don't really see any difference in the networks of power that exist in SV as do the rest of the country.
I grew up in the bay area and am far happier living outside it. I'm happier to be in a place where art and the humanities are valued instead of cast aside as immaterial or silly or a distraction. I'm happier to live in a place where people have varied interests instead of orienting their life around whatever the prevailing Big Thing is.
> So the 20-year-olds who accompanied Mr. Musk into the Department of Government Efficiency did not, I would say, distinguish themselves with their judiciousness. The Bay Area has all sorts of autistic tendencies. Though Silicon Valley values the ability to move fast, the rest of society has paid more attention to instances in which tech wants to break things. It is not surprising that hardcore contingents on both the left and the right have developed hostility to most everything that emerges from Silicon Valley.
I see some positive aspects as to more inclusive definitions of autism and neurodivergence, but I hate that we're at the point where "trying to get rich at all costs" is now perceived as autistic (and let's be clear: using mobile gas turbines that get people sick to generate power for AI is not "autistic"). Greed is not autistic, but of course the ideology of SV is that nobody actually cares about money there. Why else would they have apartments without furniture and piles of pizza boxes. It must be the autism.
> While critics of AI cite the spread of slop and rising power bills, AI’s architects are more focused on its potential to produce surging job losses. Anthropic chief Dario Amodei takes pains to point out that AI could push the unemployment rate to 20 percent by eviscerating white-collar work. I wonder whether this message is helping to endear his product to the public.
The animating concern of developing AI since 2015 has basically been "MAD" applied to the technology. The Bostrom book mentioned later in this article was clearly instrumental in creating this language to think about AI, as you can see many tech CEOs began getting "concerned" about AI around this time, prior to many of the big developments in AI like transformers. One of the seminal emails of OpenAI between Musk and Altman talks about starting a "Manhattan Project for AI". This was a useful concept to graft the development of these companies onto:
1. Firstly, it's a threat to investors. Get in on the ground floor or you will get left behind. We are building tomorrow's winners and losers and there are a lot of losers in the future.
2. Secondly, it leads to a natural source of government support. This is a national security concern. Fund this, guarantee the success of this, or America will lose.
On both counts, this framing seems to be working pretty well.
As a European, the commentary felt very biting and accurate. An entire continent defined by being smug about not being the USA. Where not competing is seen as a great virtue and where significant parts of the electorate are actively voting against fixing the glaringly obvious problems.
The supposed niceness of the cities also is just not true. Many European cities are awful places. Where, maybe with the exception of a few tourist areas, you will only find dirty streets, rows of old apartment building regularly smeared with graffiti, shops selling used phones and vapes and food stores competing over who can sell the cheapest, still edible Kebab.
Looking down on the US is just masking the enormous dysfunction in the EU and many European countries.
I have been to some countries outside of Europe. Some were much worse some were much better, but I do not particularly care. So many cities in Europe are awful places to live.
>But American problems seem more fixable to me than Chinese problems
Dan still one of the sharper PRC writers, but like all analysts who moves from PRC to stateside, he used to be Canadian in China writing about China to US, now Canadian writing in US about China, Dan starts peddling Murican dynamism cope, maybe something in the water. i.e. see his his post breakneck Chinatalk interview: Humorless engineering governance can't beat very funny Trump/US governance is... certainly a take. Maybe he should do his audience a favor and elucidate why boring competent engineer government is less dynamic/resilient than lawyers other than elections can pivot fast to reduce lawyers (kek) and something something and see see pee can't pivot fast to make productive innovative libtards, since seeseepee STEM can't innovate. Because as we know fast 4 year election cycles work better than slow 5 year plans. CCP certain needs 50% more lawyers... to slow it down.
> One way that Silicon Valley and the Communist Party resemble each other is that both are serious, self-serious, and indeed, completely humorless.
There is a commedy show literally called Silicon Valley making fun of what's going on in the valley and everybody I know in tech loves it and appreciates the humor.
There WAS a comedy called Silicon Valley that wrapped more than 5 years ago ABOUT the valley made in Hollywood by a guy with a science background who grew up in NEW MEXICO and SAN DIEGO, featuring ACTORs, none of them actual techies from the bay area.
Right, but it’s written and produced in Hollywood, not in Silicon Valley. The Valley, so the argument goes, could not produce “Silicon Valley” the show. It provides the topic to be skewered, but it can’t skewer itself.
He was born in China but his family migrated to Canada when he was 7 years old or so. Said family was also very much on the Communist shit list as former merchant/landowner types.
>Lack of action due to the expectation of long timelines is one of the sins of the lawyerly society.
>But American problems seem more fixable to me than Chinese problems.
China has stayed on trajectory of improving life of its society for a long time. USA has been in decline all that time and decent accelerated after Cold War with Russia ended.
All of China's growth comes from its internal resource. Growth in the USA had been driven by exploiting other countries.
>I made clear in my book that I am drawn to pluralism as well as a broader conception of human flourishing than one that could be delivered by the Communist Party.
Pluralism had been eradicated in the western society. I can't speak freely in Canada. People get cancelled or jailed for speaking their mind in UK. US is not too far behind in that.
There is no meaningful pluralism in the West. They never make a long term plan they can follow for many years.
China has monolithic ( more so ) society with shared culture, language(s) and national identity that runs deep to the gene level. They don't don't allow foreign influence to erode it. It's much easier to make progress when people share the same long term vision and goals.
CPC is doing just fine leading the country into the future. Sure, it has a monopoly on power, but it also owns its mistakes and fixes them. Multiparty systems of the USA and the rest of the West are just two curtains on the stage, and when you draw the curtains you see the same people attending the same party.
Elected officials aim to earn as much as they can in their short stay in power. After all, they only have a few years before they get replaced, better make use of the short time you got.
China IMO has a much brighter outlook for the future
China has very limited internal natural resources. Much of their growth has been enabled by massive imports of raw materials including soybeans, fertilizer, fossil fuels, iron ore, copper ore, etc. Their prosperity and even their survival is heavily dependent on the post-WWII global free trade system. Ironically, China's expansionist foreign policy is one of several factors now causing that system to fray. In another decade they might find it's not so easy to import soybeans from Brazil and crude oil from Saudi Arabia and ores from Australia.
I share your concerns over effective loss of freedom of expression in western countries. In the USA at least cancel culture seems to be dying out and people no longer feel as obligated to be politically correct or self-censor. But the UK may be permanently lost.
> China has very limited internal natural resources.
this kinda ignores the whole "Asia unification" that is happening right about now
Russia created connection from Iran to North Korea. SCO coordinates economy of the internalities. India-Russia-China are cooperating in BRICS. China stabilized Afghanistan and builds trade routes in the Pakistan. Even US' efforts of supporting Turkey-centered Pan-Turk organizations in the Middle Asia turn un-american as Israel-Turkey tensions are on the rise
China may have resources limited. Whole Asia tho? Don't really think so
They have that which matters the most - people with certain set of beliefs. That's the wealth of China, which they share generously with the West - just look at the Chinese developers and scientists that work in the West.
Are you quoting straight out of a CCP propaganda book?
America supposedly has no resources so we are exploiting other countries. Someone says China has no resources and suddenly the only resource that matters is the spirit of the Chinese people. Give me a break.
> USA has been in decline all that time and decent accelerated after Cold War with Russia ended.
Exactly when do you believe this decline started? I have some major concerns about the current trajectory of the USA, but it seems like nonsense to say that the US has been in decline since well before the Cold War ended.
> I can't speak freely in Canada
I wonder what it is that you want to say but can’t.
Comparing China positively against western nations and then griping about limits on freedom of speech in western nations seems suspect regardless.
> Elected officials aim to earn as much as they can in their short stay in power.
That’s true. Unelected officials can stay in power and accrue wealth for much longer than elected officials.
> Exactly when do you believe this decline started?
with 'perestroyka' in the USSR which predates end of the cold war - ever since they thought they won over communist/socialist ideas and accelerated with the breakup of the USSR
>I wonder what it is that you want to say but can’t.
Nice try, this won't provoke me.
>That’s true. Unelected officials can stay in power and accrue wealth for much longer than elected officials.
Sure, sure. The systems are setup differently but you are using the same logic for both coming from the assumption that power is used to acquire personal wealth.
For some (many) power isn't about acquisition of wealth but about responsibility, taking care of a hard chore. It's a mistake to think that Xi is in power for wealth.
I often draw a parallel with being a father. You have some power, but mostly you have responsibilities.
> ever since they thought they won over communist/socialist ideas, i.e. with the breakup of the USSR
You seem to have redefined the timeframe significantly. Previously you indicated that the decline was happening even before the end of the Cold War.
I don’t believe that this is a true statement even since the fall of the USSR, though. I’d be interested in what data or metrics this claim of decline is based on.
> Nice try, this won't provoke me.
You’re so unprovoked that you didn’t even address the concern. You could have pointed at what you believed was problematic suppression of free speech (of which there are certainly some examples in western nations) without actually divulging your apparently controversial beliefs.
Bluntly, I believe your criticism here is dishonest. Pearl clutching about apparent suppression of free speech in the west while pointing to a nation that sends ethnic Muslim minorities to reeducation camps as a better system is deeply disingenuous.
> It's a mistake to think that Xi is in power for wealth.
> I often draw a parallel with being a father. You have some power, but mostly you have responsibilities.
This is a man who refused the traditional transfer of power within the CCP and had the Chinese constitution revised so that he could remain in power. This is absolutely a man who wants power and wealth.
USA is cooked sadly, that being said being Britain 2.0 ain't too bad. pretty much all the YC companies in the past few cohorts just are desperately rent seeking, sad but true - go look urself
> Which of the tech titans are funny? In public, they tend to speak in one of two registers. The first is the blandly corporate tone we’ve come to expect when we see them dragged before Congressional hearings or fireside chats. The second leans philosophical, as they compose their features into the sort of reverie appropriate for issuing apocalyptic prophecies on AI.
This is just not accurate though? For example, this post from a tech titan might not necessarily be that funny but it's neither blandly corporate nor philosophical: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2006548935372902751
1. Elon is not funny. He’s deeply unfunny.
2. “Tend to” is the key bit you’re missing. It “tends to” be true that titans speak in those registers, even if it is true that Elon, a titan, a does not.
reply