Let me try to make some optimistic spins?

- Intel is hopefully turning their foundry business around. I think this will be a slow (1-2 decades?) process but will pay results.

- Tesla and SpaceX are actually really positive spins, though I agree Tesla isn't completely isolated from the rest of the eletronics world. It's what we've got and it's not half bad. SpaceX in particular I is world-class at this point and hopefully will continue to get better

- Toyota makes more cars in the US than not. Worst case, these are still functioning production lines staffed by good workers, that talent and working knowledge (hopefully) doesn't just disappear

- A lot of your examples are lower down the value chain, for instance Intel doesn't produce commodity RAM since they famously got out of that game in the 80s(?) to focus on the higher margin CPU business. Maybe this is good?

Ultimately though, I agree that working in ads or finance is largely flat or negative sum to society (as someone who has or is in both). It's worse than that, too. People actively look down on manufacturing, as somehow less exciting and less complex than finance.

But these are not American cars, these are German cars made in America.

Americans I meet are always surprised when they see how close are manufacturing jobs salaries in China, and US.

There are other countries that are simply better than the US at doing certain things. I don’t understand why Americans can’t just accept that. Embrace the things we’re really good at, work with others to get from them the things they’re good at.

America is good at things at the edge of the value chain. High-end goods. Services. Demand manufacturing[1]. Things that have value during good times, where the earlier links in the chain are healthy, and consumers have plenty of money to spend. In times of crisis, all this can evaporate quickly.

Also, I feel it might be that the kind of jobs America is good at are different from the lower-level jobs in ways that are not conductive to having a healthy middle class. I've read some convincingly-sounding arguments going in this direction, but I can't recall any right now, and I haven't thought about this topic hard enough to come up with one myself.

--

[0] - This is not an unprecedented idea. See Boeing as a point of comparison. From what I read, the company would've been dead long ago if not for government spending. This spending looks wasteful if you look at what gets produced, but not when you realize it's really a way to ensure that manufacturing plants and people knowing how to use them are available in case they're needed for war production.

[1] - Without being too bitter about it in this thread, I feel quite a lot of ways US brings in money are fads and artificial scarcities, created using marketing and intellectual property laws.

As for the middle class: I do agree here, we made a huge mistake gutting the manufacturing sector too quickly. But I suspect where we failed was in providing assistance to the affected communities rather than artificially trying to prop up manufacturing. The increased savings from manufacturing abroad could have been used to fund better healthcare and educational opportunities. Provide some kind of unemployment assistance. Instead all the rewards disproportionately went to a small minority of the owner/shareholder class.

I agree that fully internalizing this kind of manufacturing is counterproductive. I feel that the optimum level is a limited capacity that could be scaled up quickly in an emergency. It's less efficient short-term, but resiliency always has some costs.

> Instead all the rewards disproportionately went to a small minority of the owner/shareholder class.

I feel there's some confusion in the way offshoring savings were, and are, being talked about. Possibly a purposeful confusion. The way I see it, one can't say "we're saving money by offshoring", where "we" means "our country/our economy". It's the private owners/shareholders that are saving money. The country only saves if they get to appropriate those savings, e.g. through a tax. If companies start to offshore and the government doesn't adapt taxation, then the country is actually losing on this.

This is essentially a reworded version of the "ricardian law of comparative advantage" which was treated as gospel as an economic theory in the 1990s-early 2000s.

It's almost dead today. The widely believed built in presumption that comparative advantage was static and unchangrable essentially led to American manufacturing being siphoned off overseas to countries that did not share this view.

Almost all policymakers are now starting to treat this as a geopolitical threat.

- no transportation costs

- no unemployment

- barter economy

- 100% fungible labor - farmer, teacher, chemical engineer, doctor - they're all the same and can switch between jobs instantly, and immediately attain the level of productivity within that sector

- prices are 100% determined by labor costs

- demand for various types of items is static, and never changes

- the demand structure is the same across all countries - i.e. if British prefer tea to coffee, we assume all countries prefer tea to coffee

It's not just a "spherical cow" theory, it's more akin to "if a spherical cow rolls frictionlessly down a valley described by a parabola, then it will oscillate forever". True, but useless.

Keynes, as usual, is ahead of the pack - calling out the theory's unrealistic assumptions, and predicting (in 1930s) that not the production, but the interest rates will do the adjustments - leading to persistent trade imbalances and move the economy further from full employment. Which is exactly what happened

The truth lies in neither. The biggest economic problems stem from rigidity. Money has such an extreme degree of rigidity, it is capable of traveling through both space and time unhindered. It's a time machine and massless particle all in one.

The reason why Austrian economics appeals to some people is either because they have an anti government axe to grind and want more trivial reasons to blame the government, they want to be on the receiving end of a regressive money system (gold bugs), macroeconomics are often abandoned in favor of microeconomics which hides the fact that local decision making can still result in seemingly coordinated failure and finally because they have mistaken moral beliefs about an amoral system most notably the myth of the protestant work ethic and the belief that the promise of work is their own personal property and it should be their right to delay redeeming that promise for all eternity.

I will repeat it again. There are no morals in economics. Anyone who worships savings and frugality in monetary terms is worshipping poverty in real terms. Eat your economic cake, it will be bigger tomorrow because of that and when somebody needs you to show restraint and want to borrow your slice, they'll tell you.

For me that is plain envy sorry. And, who is the greedy the ones that save their work or the ones that want the wealth made by others? Because that is more greedy IMHO.

You are missing that growing in permanent debt has consequences. Some countries have been ruined by external debt. We are on our way.

We people do not manage wealth like that. A call for poverty is to live over our real outcome permanently (this does not mean we cannot invest and have debt as long as we are able to pay and as long as it has expected return in controlled ways).

Eventually you go bankrupt. What is being poorer than not being able to finance your basic services?

And yes, I admit to hsve become somewhat antistate. Because it is a scam, basically, to monopolize services, offer them more expensive, without the innovations that markets could provide you mich faster and on the way saying you are ok thanks to them and that you owe the state everything.

I can deal with market prices and free choice and save a bunch of money, which is MY invested effort, so it is me who should manage it.

States do not give me anything except poor justifications for their existence. The only exceptions could be (and I am not convinced either) security and justice.

I really think they are way more correct than the alternative: that we must be forced in groups under the decisions of ellites. This is not morally right. And, BTW, a higher goal for the sake of others under coaction lead to fascisms and communism. Little by little we lose our freedom. Not a good thing.

Austrians are a crotchety bunch and a bit stuck in their ways. They never really tried to explain the rise of China and are still somewhat in denial about it.

I would say they did not get here faster because of too much intervention honestly...

Nothing is pure capitalism or socialism. As you open the economy the cash flows more. That is what happened...

BTW, I do not consider China a success since they are like one century late from America and on top of that there is no regike that has killed more than the Chinese. Do you really think it is a success? Well... I would say despite of the people managing it, not because of them...

That said, I am not meaning austrians got everything right, just that I find them relatively convincing in many areas. Of course, they are subjrct to criticism, as everyone else.

India shared similar population size, geography and wealth to China initially.

India had something closer to a market economy that was less interventionist/communist and for far longer and yet it has grown at a far slower pace.

Austrian predictions from the 90s presumed that China keeping tight control of the economy/currency/inward flows of investment and high level of state ownership was shooting itself in the foot.

However, for me the discussion is also ethical: I do not find a reason to have an ellite forcing on all the others through coaction what to do. Whether it maximizes economy or not. In other words: peopke are ends not means for others. That is the fundamental point in my view.

I would not take a regime with over 60 million deaths (big leap forward, Chinese cultural revolution, etc.) as an example of something ethical by any measure.

The history of a reasonably good country that had successes as the Great Leap Forward, the Chinese Cultural revolution and now the Uyghurs, among many others.

You know, Chinese government is not reasonably good at any level by any moral assessment.

Capitalism has been superior in every aspect: as a proof, migration flows went from socialists to capitalists countries, being East/West Germany just one example.

That's not really true. Tesla and Panasonic jointly developed their cells. And the latest 4680 cells are fully designed by Tesla. Tesla also seems to be going independent for production at future factories.

I noticed this around the same time. It was 2010 and I was still in grad school, my lab mate and I used to poke fun of what we called the "Twitter researchers", who were working on what we perceived to be very boring projects (i.e. figure out the optimal ranking of N articles on a page to maximize some objective function). They also didn't like the research, but Twitter/Facebook/Microsoft/Google was paying for their tuition and stipend, so they didn't have much of a choice. When the big grant funding agencies are funding projects at a rate of around 20% - 25%, if you're a researcher hurting for federal dollars then that big tech money looks really good. I can only imagine this dynamic being replicated at universities across the country, how many young minds are wasted on this pursuit. And for what? So Google can sell more ads and become even richer? So Facebook can suck all of your attention just to make you depressed and suffer from body dysmorphia and an eating disorder?

I'm in the robotics field, and in our lab we used to draw a clear line that whatever we worked on would not have a direct military application, because we couldn't stand the thought of our work being used to kill people. Obviously the line is blurry (will my localization algorithm be used on a predator drone?), but there was always at least an eye toward ethical considerations in our research group. We always asked ourselves "How could this be used to hurt people?" It was in our culture, because our work had such obvious evil implications. Just watch pretty much any sci-fi movie ever, there was no shortage of ideas about how robotics research could go wrong.

But there's not a lot of sci-fi source material on how page-ranking algorithms can destroy society. These "Twitter researchers" as I called them never really had a notion that their work could be used for evil purposes, and who could blame them? In 2010 it seemed so benign. But looking around at the state of social media, maybe there should have been more conversations early on about the ethical implications of the research they were doing.

I'd argue the technology that did most of the heavy-lifting for disinformation, polarization, and conspiracy was AM radio, followed by cable TV. Smartphones, the web and social media were not the cause, but a natural progression of, and an amplifier of a pre-existing trend.

There are no technological solutions to the human condition, but technology amplifies aspects of it.

I have available weapons and drugs. zmI do not use either. I am convinced it is a bad decision except in probably very extreme conditions.

We cannot be blaming others just for doing ads. No demand, no offer. Got it? Easy as that.

We all like a world we do not have, we always find problems. But that is not a reason to say what is bad or good. The market will decide :D

I do not get stressed at all with all these Betting houses (now fashionable in Spain) or drugs or anything: just need to be responsible.

We regulate gambling and tobacco for the same reason we should regulate this. Google and Facebook ads have been scientifically tuned to hijack your brain chemistry for money. This isn't blame, or whining, it's simply acknowledging that these companies weaponized visual stimulus and data collection to sell ads on the internet. No amount of personal responsibility is going to solve a human society level problem.

That said... well, I still think that at the end, nothing can beat having good information. Close Facebook, Google and put ads blockers.

And again, the whole thrust of my argument is that telling people to close Facebook is the same as telling them to stop smoking. It's naïve and ignores the reality of brain chemistry and addiction.

> So if I have all the information known for years from tobacco and I smoke and get into trouble, then I blame it on not having regulations?

If you, as a fully-informed, grown adult in 2021 make that choice, then no. In the real world, that's not how people get addicted to cigarettes. People generally get addicted when they are young, uninformed, and highly susceptible to the marketing aimed at them. Plenty of people living today remember doctors recommending cigarettes for pregnant women - it's silly to assume every person is going to know the risks of these things from the very minute they decide to engage in them. Just look at how quickly Juul took over high schools - you are really going to tell me that a 15 year old trying to fit in is making a full informed, long term decision about tobacco usage? Absurd. Or the Oxycotin epidemic - all those people were addicted to drugs because of Sackler's marketing and the corruption of their doctors - how does one take personal responsibility for following medical advice?

Social media is now where tobacco was in the 70s and 80s before all the information was released in a narrative form that the public could easily digest. All that knowledge about the risks comes from the process of bringing that information into the public light.

That would prevent way more I guess. Of course, in our law, trying to sell cigarrettes actively to underage is illegal and I find that regulation reasonable.

But trying to protect adults from their own irresponsibility is a totally different story. It is their problem.

I get your point and in some way you are right also. I am just advocating for little regulation, but, of course, I am talking also about adults here.

I did not mean underage people. If you target underage for gambling or any addiction in bad faith, that is an attempt to cause damage and punishable.

But that does not mean that the most important thing is to have the information there and decide. Again, I am talking about adults.

By the way, talking about regulations. In my country you can open a university only if it has 8 or 9 degrees offered. If I want to open the best CS degree in the country as a University, I cannot. Do you find it reasonable? Do you think this goes in the interest of consumers? Do you think the state abuses its position by doing so? (Clearly yes). That is why I do not want regulations. You give them the power and they end up regulating even your position to go to the toilet. That said, I find under/overage, even if it is arbitrary (there are teenagers that are responsible people), reasonable, to protect them from unscrupulous people.

But I do not need my life to be ruled in the name of so many things, that is bad and it goes against us if you think of it carefully.

But you will always have responsible teenagers and irresponsible adults. We should not help people that do not want to be helped.

The same way we should help people that have trouble. We should, I think, honestly, but... that we should does not mean we should have that responsibility unconditionally and coactively.

You know what? It can look selfish to you but you are going to have way more autonomous, responsible and self-sufficient people if you apply this rule. A good outcome IMHO.

Forbiding is not the way to go. The way to go is to make people aware of the dangers and implications of their choices and convince them why we should avoid damaging others. Empathy is key here: just do not do to others what you do not want for you seems to me like the most basic of the rules.

Imposing a view of what others can or cannot do is absurd, harmful and also we can miss all the good things we can do with things that can also be misused.

Social media is one of those things. It doesn't present itself with the same raw force of nuclear power, but it has proven to have an undeniable power over the human mind. Despite the evidence we have now, though, it still seems that ethical considerations of social media are not being taken seriously enough by the people with the most power of social media platforms, and this worries me.

I would like to know which ones. If you do something to not harm, why do you have to be blamed because other misuse it? I do not think this is the right line of thinking if you mean that we should not do it just on the basis that "someone evil could misuse it". Of course, as an individual you can refuse to research if you think it can yield those results, but never blame it on a researcher that someone else misused their invention.

Social media is a fight because there is an obsession for censorship from some interested parties, in part. That is why.

I do not believe in those super powers as much in the sense that you can always stay away from it as much as you wish. It is a matter of self-discipline also, even if it is indeed a "powerful weapon".

What I’m talking about is twofold: a cultural recognition and appreciation of the ethical issues, and secondly appropriate safeguards to prevent maluse of said technology, where appropriate.

Take nuclear weapons for instance. I personally wouldn’t have involved myself in building them, but others did and here we are. We as a society don’t just let that technology run amok though. There are laws about their proliferation, organizations dedicated to keeping their use in check, and a society-level understanding that their use have such terrible consequences that they can never, ever be taken lightly.

With this environment, so far we’ve averted armed nuclear conflict. But it’s important to realize this is a purposeful thing. People dedicate their lives to this pursuit. It takes effort to build this shared understanding of their dangers.

I agree with you that an individual researcher is not to blame if they are doing careful, considered research. If the attitude is “the implications of my research are not my concern. That is for someone else to worry about” then I do have a problem with that. And yes, that is a real opinion I have heard expressed by a researcher in deep fakes, and it deeply dismayed me.

I would also refuse to be involved in programs to harm people honestly.

What would not be great is if we just allow a handful of people to own all the robots in the world (and their output), just as we allow a handful of people to own all the capital producing equipment in the world. Then we're just where we are today, but even worse off. This is actually my nightmare, and partly why I don't do much robotics anymore these days...

Remember, people only need jobs because we as a society have decided if they don't have jobs, we will allow them to go hungry and suffer exposure of the elements due to homelessness. This is perhaps necessary when there's so much work to be done you want people working instead of idle and comfortable. But if the robots can do all the work, then why do people need jobs? Only if the benefits of that work accrue to a handful of people rather that society as a whole.

- building the business

- maintaining it healthy (this can incur additional expenses at unpredictable times)

- the jobs it generates (that never mind, they are bad in your mind I suppose or they just do it to earn money! They do... but you also pick the job in the first place to make money!)

- the expenses they have to pay in case of firing someone if it does not produce.

- social security they pay and contribute for everyone (at least in the spanish system)

Do you find ethical to just ask for more money go and leave them bankrupt, without any regard of how they coud survive, when you just went pick up a position when much of that business was built? Really? I find it unethical also.

Get your best deal, with your employer, they will give you what they think they can or want, but by mutual contract. If you do not like it, go move to the next chance, it is not anyone's fault. Nothing bad into it. It is how you do in life: you choose what you drink (and what you do not!), who you join, where you go... nothing different here.

Otherwise, the logical consequence would be that we would not. I believe in win-win deals. The voluntary ones are by definition like that. You can take a bad decision, yes. But still, you get my point.

This depends on more variables, but the goal is to avoid barriers and regulations so that the wealth increases, since these break monopolies or de-facto monopolies (via absurd regulations).

But yes, that has its own set of risks. Risks that are disregarded all the time making employers the bad part of the story and employees the good ones. This is not at all like that you can find good and bad on both sides...

An employer is not bad for trying to pay you less. The reverse argument should be true also: the employee is bad because they want more (than they deserve or produce).

No part is bad, it is natural to want to maximize our outcome. It is how things are. I see many people having a problem with this thing. But they only have the problem when it is the other who tries to do that. When they do it for their own benefit then everything is fair and alright.

Considering the huge variety in "natural by definition wealth inequality" across countries it feels like we have enough freedom to choose how much inequality we want. What we definitively know we is that we can make wealth inequality much worse than it has to be. Just take a look at South Africa. 30% unemployment by nature. Thank god we chose a different "natural by definition wealth inequality". What your argument also fails to consider is that wealth inequality is getting worse over time implying there must have been a natural shift rather than a political one.

>And imposing others share the fruit of their value, unethical.

If you refuse to share work, then you must share income by definition.

Consider a society that only needs a 4 hour work week. One person decides to work 8 hours because they like their job and talk about how amazing work is and people should work more. One person no longer has to work. The hard working person will then look at the unemployed person and then tell everyone how lazy he is.

Before you invoke the lump of labor fallacy, you have to realize that the argument relies on Say's law which assumes that the hard working person worked because he wasn't satisfied with the products and services one can obtain in a 4 hour work week, essentially that all the money that person earns will be spent and therefore generate demand for the person that is unemployed. The truth is far more pessimistic.

The hard working person will insist that he should keep his money even though he has no intention to spend it, essentially denying that say's law even exists (empirical evidence shows it's being broken all the time). This insistence is what keeps the lazy person unemployed. That unemployed person still needs 1 hour of services and goods (housing and food). The bandaid answer is to tax the hard working person and transfer the bare minimum to the unemployed person and it works because making everyone spend all their money is never going to happen, there are too many morally inclined people on this planet that insist on a oddly specific and harmful form of saving.

There are plenty of people that take bad decisions or take jobs with lower income or no jobs at all and they try to blame the rest. I do not feel responsible for the bad decisions of others. I am not morally forced to help them.

You can be sure that if they are people I know and I know their stories I could help. But that is very, I mean, VERY different from being morally responsible for the failures of others.

Saving harmful? First, it is good in that it will lower the inflation lolol. But leaving that apart... so it is bad to not spend the money so we must force them? Seriously, I do not understand anything.

In order to make money u mist provide services or goods. If u have money is bc ur service is serving others, at least in a free market... so tell me why those people that took yhe trouble to serve others and take risks should be penalized. Do not tell me they do it for money not for serving others... that is not important. The important thing is that the side-effects is satisfying a demandand that u bought either bc it is better than the competition or cheaper.

In my view it should be much more penalized a person that does not want to work bc they say those jobs are all shit and expects the welfare to rescue them.

Sorry to be so harsh with the topic, because I know that there are people who are not like that. But the problem is not helping itself, it is systematizing it. At that point people abuse it.

This is difficult to say: you mean a person that works has exactly the same skills? In the case they have, you still can have a 4h/day person that is more skilled. That person will still have a job.

And yes, if a person works harder, it will get more from it. They cannot be blamed for working I think. In any case people should be blamed for not wanting to work and wanting to live from others. I do not find a problem with the reverse reasoning. Just my opinion, I understand your point, though.

It is this. Nothing else.

And I mean the lazy. I understand there are other kind of people that are broke for other reasons.

It is extremely costly to develop a new airplane and to train staff on it, at the price point and fuel efficiency for airlines to sell ever cheaper tickets. Airbus is doing the exact same with its neo models. Bombardier and Embraer were driven into the arms of the duopoly because they cannot afford to develop new aircraft. Russia, China, and Japan have all tried their hand at pumping billions of dollars into commercial aircraft manufacturing and haven’t been successful.

Southwest, Ryanair and their competition are literally nickel and diming everything to offer ever cheaper seats to fliers. Until that changes, airlines will balk at new aircraft.

It's why 737Max was developed instead of NMA; Airbus came out with the 320 and 330neo series, which did not require retraining.

I am just saying that the economic incentives are not aligned so that a decision other than the 737MAX would've been the prudent, competitive move.

Tesla is also working with Panasonic and CATL to implement their own factories for 4680 cells and scale production.

it slays me that the engineers, the techies, have never had our day. we havent gotten good. we havent started new things, havent been augmenting & enhancing the world: we've been well paid to do the opposite, to capitvate & control & take technology, to dollop it out in little well managed productized offerings. the whole culture of innovation has dried up. i think of tech as still having so much prowess, skills, potential, and power, but wow, it is so squandered. it is so hard to break off on our own, to step away from the giant faucets of money & to start pursuing the radical, the good, the possible, the exciting. the potential.

and what possibilities do arise, they seem so very quickly picked up, bought out, folded in to the mass corporatized system. comoetition & competency & novelty keep dying before they really get a chamce to bloom. it's the Thiel'ian advice to Facebook to sell, to take the money, get rich now, rather than keep working & trudging on, hoping.

In fact, there are like famous semiconductor companies that make their stuff in the US. Makes me suspect the rest of the list as similar doomsaying.

Adtran (Huntsville, AL & just acquired ADVA), Infinera (fab in Sunnyvale, CA). Both make optical transport systems. Adtran also makes access network systems (POTS, DSL, PON, Ethernet). Adtran has (or had) some manufacturing capability in Alabama.

For starters, what about all the startups powered by AWS?

Amazon lets my programmer cousins in India buy the latest technical books in days, while my generation used to torrent and print 15-20 years ago.

Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, all have engineering centres in China.

When Zuckerberg was flying to suck up to Xi Jinping, he didn't fly there in hopes of getting Facebook.com available in China. What he got from Xi is a permission to setup an office to sell ads, and hire cheap Chinese engineers.

Apple famously tried to conceal even the fact of the existence of their RnD office in China, claiming that they don't have "design centres" outside of USA. Up to some point, people working in Apple RnD centre in China had a contract clause prohibiting them from posting the fact of their employment there on their LinkedIns.

Google... almost the same story as the two above, it almost felt as if they felt "beshamed" to admit that they were opening an RnD shop in Shenzhen. "A small auxiliary office" that takes a few floors in Shenzhen's biggest building.

Amazon started their Echo, and Fire RnD in USA, and then sent it off to China after a few releases, and repeated flops of Fire.

Not going to happen.

Why doesn't the US try to onshore critical manufacturing? This is braindead stupid behavior. Existentially risky.

All of those things make a very small overlap between people who need to work such low value manufacturing jobs and those who have the skills and personality to do them. In essence, we've settled in to enormous wealth and safety by cooperating with other countries, and you are proposing that we should cooperate less and be poorer.

I'm not convinced that you're wrong, but that's what you're propounding.

Update: In other words, you're asking the national level version of "why don't we move back to the land and become self sufficient and steer clear of industrial ag and make our own food?" Same answer: we like our wealth, comfort, and safety where we are, thank you very much.

Also in part because much of our leadership isn't composed of Americans working for American national interests, it's composed of humanists who perceive themselves to be global citizens and believe in a worldwide frictionless marketplace operating under a universal liberalism that incidentally control American resources.

Nothing short of global war will fix this. Enter war with China where all trade is halted, and I promise you we’ll figure out how to on-shore manufacturing in a jiffy. A terrible price, but the only solution.

Yes, let’s start a global military conflict between nuclear powers in the hope that an economic activity that’s no longer feasible maybe becomes feasible.

Boeing does have its faults though.

You don't need that kind of equipment any more since the advent of VoIP and software-defined radio/networking.

> The US can no longer make smartphones.

Apple is US-based as is the world's leading provider of mobile communication chips Qualcomm (and for what it's worth I seriously believe Apple is going to go vertical on that part too!), and with Google you have a second US-based vendor of operating systems.

Or are you referring to the capability of produce all components of a smartphone on US soils?

I’d also say the creative works has seen a massive revolution from technology. Anyone can make professional video/audio/graphics today and distribute it.

Nope. What has been going on over the last decades is simply the consequence of unregulated capitalism - by design, capitalism seeks to eliminate or reduce cost to increase profit, and China (as well as India and Vietnam) were/are the most cost-efficient locations to produce goods and provide services.

I am sure Kissinger played a part in many things, but he seems small pickles compared to labor costs (and hence quality of life) in the US being multiple standard deviations above the mean compared to the rest of the world.

How long did people expect that arbitrage opportunity to not be taken advantage of?

Also, adding China to the WTO was probably a bad thing for the lower half of the income distribution in the developed world.

If China and other countries are bringing 1B+ people online to make products at a fifth of your wages, then it is only a matter of time before the buyers outside the country start buying from them.

What happened was that American (and European) corporations started producing their goods in other countries, because it was cheaper for them.

Like, I would have no issue with this in general if China developed their own companies, rather than already profitable US companies slashing their labour costs massively by using cheaper labour. It's super problematic, and while one can argue it's been good for the world, it's been pretty crap for all the manual/manufacturing workers in the US, Uk and other developed countries.

Full disclosure: I'm from Ireland, and this sort of outsourcing was what employed my Dad (and now me).

Aren’t they working for them?? At McDonald’s?? And honestly they’re probably working harder than me, a software engineer, who also has a 1000$ phone. But I also have healthcare, and never have to put up with mopping any flooring.

Sure, but devices with replaceable batteries are theoretically easier to use longer. The average person buys a mobile phone every other year and discards their old ones. Practically every consumer electronic out there uses rechargeable batteries now which puts a limited lifespan on them.

https://www.engineering.txstate.edu/Programs/MFGE.html

https://mime.oregonstate.edu/manufacturing-engineering-under...

Or anywhere that offers both an IE and ME degree, you could likely build your own.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11347 (PDF, 2019, so pre-Corona)

Sure, that still leaves plenty of native US students.

Would you rather fish out a map and look for directions or simply ask your car for navigation directions?

Would a cancer researcher use his library card and read literature or simply Google it?

Would you like to solve the protein folding problem?

All of these have been paid for by advertisements.

Isn't Deep Mind a british company that Google bought it? Seems to me that most of the credit should go to UK society/education and just a bit to advertising industry.

Or I see arguments like "why there is any non US company for X ?" and the implication is that SV is the best where in fact SV has the money to buy anything that is promising and sometimes kill it but sometimes like in DeepMind case managed it good enough ot to waste it.

How do you think these free products get paid for? By the 10% of engineering that does ads. The engineers optimizing ads are actually getting everything else in the company funded, including revenue less Deepmind, which would have folded years ago unless it was purchased by Big Tech.

Sure give credit to the government and educational system, but what is the point of denigrating ads engineers who are funding all of these while also optimizing ads results so that they are relevant to users. Would you rather have them work on cancer research? Do you really think cancer research is desperate for machine learning engineers to help them out?

Or would something like DeepMind, Google brain, automated medical report analysis, smart search of medical archives help them better?

Edit: as an aside, its presumptuous to say that the best minds of our generation are ML and systems engineers. ML engineers are good at math, programming and optimizing models. This doesn't automatically make them great biologists, oncologists, physicists or even mathematicians.

I don't have an issue with a honest ad, what I have an issue is on team of people focusing on manipulating others to watch more videos, or stay more on a page, or write a giant comment so they can place more ads(or similar with shitty video games). Money from this evil operations are dirty. You could have won this money in a better way in a better world, we should strive for that better world and at least we can do is give the credit properly.

"Major venture capital firms Horizons Ventures and Founders Fund invested in the company,[18] as well as entrepreneurs Scott Banister,[19] Peter Thiel,[20] and Elon Musk.[21] Jaan Tallinn was an early investor and an adviser to the company.[22] On 26 January 2014, Google announced the company had acquired DeepMind for $500 million,[23][24][25][26][27][28] and that it had agreed to take over DeepMind Technologies. The sale to Google took place after Facebook reportedly ended negotiations with DeepMind Technologies in 2013"

Semiconductors, computing theory, GPS, GSM, satellites, airplanes, X-ray, optical cables, analog radio transmission and spread spectrum, industrial chemistry, solar power, nuclear power, vaccines, genetic research, and much more.

Private companies putting together a search engine or uber or deliveroo are sitting on the shoulders of giants.

And protein folding isn't exactly solved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube

It had a lot of content back then.

Work since has gone into scaling and transcoding, but much more work has gone into ads, platform stickiness, music rights management, abuse detection, etc. Not really solving problems at the forefront of humanity.

We now have a good understanding of just how far ahead we pushed ourselves beyond what market forces were going to pursue: 50-60 years, which is pretty cool.

Actually, that might be electronics and computers. The basis for Silicon Valley was created during WWII - by unrestrained debt-based government spending.

https://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo -- "Secret History of Silicon Valley"

Of course, maybe trying to rank the developments by industry or sector makes no sense, sooo much was influenced by what happened in that period. Agriculture too, if what I read and remember correctly a lot of WWII chemical industry was reused for things like fertilizer, but I don't have a good (i.e. direct and good quality scientific study instead of some blog post or pop book) source for that.

I dislike this separation of "government" vs. "business". I remember an MIT biology course (genetics) where the professor explained Gregor Mendel (the guy with the beans) a bit more - his circumstances. That man wasn't some random person who purely by chance happened to be interested in biology and inheritance. Turns out he was part of a far wider effort of church, state and industry to produce economic progress. Historically, even looking at how England became a world power, there never was such a separation. Government always acted as an extension of economic interests in combination with the merchants, later with the capitalists.

Mikron Technology Inc