> But this essay reads more like a class warfare piece than a good argument for why techno optimism is bad. IMHO Karpf is saying we had lots of techno-optimism

> But this essay reads more like a class warfare piece than a good argument for why techno optimism is bad. IMHO Karpf is saying we had lots of techno-optimism starting in the 1990s (cf. Wired), but in the 2020s we now the advertiser-monitoring complex: so why is Andreeson surprised that there's push-back against tech? Why is Andreeson surprised that folks are expressing concern at possible negative side-effects of tech? I think this paragraph is a good summary of Karpf: > Economic inequality does not solve itself. Markets are not perfect, self-correcting mechanisms. At one point, Andreessen writes “The market naturally disciplines (…) Markets prevent monopolies and cartels.” I take this as evidence that he doesn’t read any actual economists. One could make an argument that the 90s techno-optimists did not yet know any better (we were just trying global capitalism for the first time, maybe it’d work great!). But, for a Silicon Valley set that likes to pretend at being hardcore Bayesian rationalists, there is something downright comical about how they have managed, across the past thirty years, not to update a single one of their priors.