4 ms·

The most interesting part of the talk is what is avoided. Like the positive effect of government policy. The US Anti-trust policy was very effective at times.

The most interesting part of the talk is what is avoided. Like the positive effect of government policy. The US Anti-trust policy was very effective at times. Temporary National Economic Committee (TNEC) 1938-1941 forced licensing of tens of thousands of patents. When AT&T Bell Labs invented transistor it was forced to allow anyone to use it's knowledge. People went to Bell Labs and they were taught how to manufacture transistors. Massive industry spurted overnight. If transistor was invented today, the inventor would have a monopoly for transistor 25 years and generate huge profits.

mjewkes 7y ago
In their public-facing work, Cowen and pc talk primarily about the importance and upside of progress and growth [1][2]. As someone who leans left, I find these writings both novel and compelling - some of the most compelling market-oriented thinking I've come across. At the same time, pc, Cowen, and Zuck are in the thick of the SF "conservative libertarian" milieu. Thiel was a/the first major investor in FB, Stripe, and Cowen's "Emergent Ventures". Cowen's Mercatus center has deep ties (that I don't fully understand) with Koch industries and the federalist society. Etc. I'm _far_ less impressed with the policies actually advocated for by these groups. I'd actually be really interested in hearing the three of them discuss opportunities for government policy to have significant positive impact. I'd be surprised if pc wasn't a fan of at least some aspects of the FAA / NTSB [3], and I know Cowen advocates for public increases in basic research / R&D investment [4]. As "libertarian conservative" "public thought leaders", I wonder where else they might agree that government intervention can be net very-positive. [Edit: sorry about the labels. There are real clusters of thinking and people here that need names, but I'm sure that they'd prefer different labels] [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/we-need-new-science-progress/594946/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/we-need-... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Stubborn-Attachments-Prosperous-Responsible-Individuals/dp/1732265135 https://www.amazon.com/Stubborn-Attachments-Prosperous-Respo... + thorough review/interview https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/tyler-cowen-stubborn-attachments/ https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/tyler-cowen-stubborn... [3] https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1021995602970923010 https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1021995602970923010 [4] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/02/the-public-funding-of-research-and-development.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/02/th...
- mjewkes 7y ago
  Conversely, I'd love to read a Vox editorial that looks for opportunites for government deregulation/step-back.

mjewkes 7y ago

In their public-facing work, Cowen and pc talk primarily about the importance and upside of progress and growth [1][2]. As someone who leans left, I find these writings both novel and compelling - some of the most compelling market-oriented thinking I've come across. At the same time, pc, Cowen, and Zuck are in the thick of the SF "conservative libertarian" milieu. Thiel was a/the first major investor in FB, Stripe, and Cowen's "Emergent Ventures". Cowen's Mercatus center has deep ties (that I don't fully understand) with Koch industries and the federalist society. Etc. I'm _far_ less impressed with the policies actually advocated for by these groups. I'd actually be really interested in hearing the three of them discuss opportunities for government policy to have significant positive impact. I'd be surprised if pc wasn't a fan of at least some aspects of the FAA / NTSB [3], and I know Cowen advocates for public increases in basic research / R&D investment [4]. As "libertarian conservative" "public thought leaders", I wonder where else they might agree that government intervention can be net very-positive. [Edit: sorry about the labels. There are real clusters of thinking and people here that need names, but I'm sure that they'd prefer different labels] [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/we-need-new-science-progress/594946/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/we-need-... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Stubborn-Attachments-Prosperous-Responsible-Individuals/dp/1732265135 https://www.amazon.com/Stubborn-Attachments-Prosperous-Respo... + thorough review/interview https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/tyler-cowen-stubborn-attachments/ https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/tyler-cowen-stubborn... [3] https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1021995602970923010 https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1021995602970923010 [4] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/02/the-public-funding-of-research-and-development.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/02/th...

mjewkes 7y ago
Conversely, I'd love to read a Vox editorial that looks for opportunites for government deregulation/step-back.