The cool new movement among policy wonks won’t make a dent in ensuring America wins the existential techno-economic trade war we’re fighting with China.
A very important critique, and I once again thank the author very much for writing it.
Atkinson makes an invaluable contribution with his criticism of "Abundance," and rightly so. I'm not sure if it is sad or instead shocking that what some think are important, new ideas can be so easily challenged with simple economics or, well, even just common sense.
I'd add that there are some troubling reasons for why people are arguing policy from the perspectives they are, and his citing that there might be a left-right agreement on abundance given that the right gets deregulation and the left gets redistribution is important to note. We've had for too long a two-party system (there's nothing wrong with a two-party system; I rail against one-party systems all the time and want them to be replaced by democratic forms of governments that have at least two parties) in which both parties argue policies that are coming from extremes.
Moreover, the left's focus on redistribution is a dangerous path to follow given that the major threat we face now is from China, which is run by a communist party that came to power with a goal of redistribution and re-education rather than education and empowerment that makes people and their economies more productive. The result of the former approach has been tens of millions dead in China from 1949 through the 1970s, and tens of millions of unemployed in its trading partners' economies since the 1980s.
Atkinson's goal here and elsewhere from my understanding is primarily designed to educate America and policy makers who’ve gotten a lot wrong regarding, well, policy, particularly the need for implementing an industrial policy. With it, he makes perhaps the most critically important point in this piece: we don’t have time to waste. We need policies in Washington and even Wall Street changed, now; not simply getting "new ideas" like "Abundance" published in the media and talked about over the internet.
And speaking about empowerment, I feel a bit vindicated - at least from the criticism I often levy internally upon myself everyday - when I read Atkinson's commentaries like this one.
While the author here has written an extensive amount of research and policy recommendations over many years, commentaries like the one he offers here are instead focused on critiquing what others have written or argued. While I write market reports every day and at terrible hours of the day, I seldom contribute real academic research and analysis of the kind he correctly points out are critically important to create real policy.
Instead, I at least hope to highlight important ideas to others or, as some can tell you, criticize toxic ones, brutally if needed given the frustration of living in a society and economy - which does support industrial policy - here in Taiwan that will be steamrolled over first before the Chinese Communist Party moves on to bigger and better things: unseating America and its democracy as a world leader. I am thankful that my critiques are often focused on the main concerns Atkinson has here, namely how not to lose the techno-economic war to China and empower America's economy in order to do so.
We don't have time to waste. As I have said before: every day we don't get our "ducks in a row" economically, technologically, militarily, educationally and politically, we allow China under its communist party another extra day to get its ducks in a row. We should not be surprised, therefore, if one day that we find Beijing has gotten its ducks in a row before we did. Then, rather than simply carve us up like a melon the way they accuse us in the West of wanting to do to China in the 19th century, the CCP will carve our system and society up like Peking Duck and serve it to the 90 million-plus party members who want nothing more to ensure their flawed system has no challengers.
Again, good commentary. Rather than "Abundance," we need intelligence. Industrial policy at home in America and a better foreign policy to meet the threats to America would be much better.
A very important critique, and I once again thank the author very much for writing it.
Atkinson makes an invaluable contribution with his criticism of "Abundance," and rightly so. I'm not sure if it is sad or instead shocking that what some think are important, new ideas can be so easily challenged with simple economics or, well, even just common sense.
I'd add that there are some troubling reasons for why people are arguing policy from the perspectives they are, and his citing that there might be a left-right agreement on abundance given that the right gets deregulation and the left gets redistribution is important to note. We've had for too long a two-party system (there's nothing wrong with a two-party system; I rail against one-party systems all the time and want them to be replaced by democratic forms of governments that have at least two parties) in which both parties argue policies that are coming from extremes.
Moreover, the left's focus on redistribution is a dangerous path to follow given that the major threat we face now is from China, which is run by a communist party that came to power with a goal of redistribution and re-education rather than education and empowerment that makes people and their economies more productive. The result of the former approach has been tens of millions dead in China from 1949 through the 1970s, and tens of millions of unemployed in its trading partners' economies since the 1980s.
Atkinson's goal here and elsewhere from my understanding is primarily designed to educate America and policy makers who’ve gotten a lot wrong regarding, well, policy, particularly the need for implementing an industrial policy. With it, he makes perhaps the most critically important point in this piece: we don’t have time to waste. We need policies in Washington and even Wall Street changed, now; not simply getting "new ideas" like "Abundance" published in the media and talked about over the internet.
And speaking about empowerment, I feel a bit vindicated - at least from the criticism I often levy internally upon myself everyday - when I read Atkinson's commentaries like this one.
While the author here has written an extensive amount of research and policy recommendations over many years, commentaries like the one he offers here are instead focused on critiquing what others have written or argued. While I write market reports every day and at terrible hours of the day, I seldom contribute real academic research and analysis of the kind he correctly points out are critically important to create real policy.
Instead, I at least hope to highlight important ideas to others or, as some can tell you, criticize toxic ones, brutally if needed given the frustration of living in a society and economy - which does support industrial policy - here in Taiwan that will be steamrolled over first before the Chinese Communist Party moves on to bigger and better things: unseating America and its democracy as a world leader. I am thankful that my critiques are often focused on the main concerns Atkinson has here, namely how not to lose the techno-economic war to China and empower America's economy in order to do so.
We don't have time to waste. As I have said before: every day we don't get our "ducks in a row" economically, technologically, militarily, educationally and politically, we allow China under its communist party another extra day to get its ducks in a row. We should not be surprised, therefore, if one day that we find Beijing has gotten its ducks in a row before we did. Then, rather than simply carve us up like a melon the way they accuse us in the West of wanting to do to China in the 19th century, the CCP will carve our system and society up like Peking Duck and serve it to the 90 million-plus party members who want nothing more to ensure their flawed system has no challengers.
Again, good commentary. Rather than "Abundance," we need intelligence. Industrial policy at home in America and a better foreign policy to meet the threats to America would be much better.