Keen On America

• The Innovation Paradox Undermining the Digital Revolution: How Magical Technology Isn't Translating into Miraculous Economic Progress

  It’s the most curious paradox of today’s digital revolution. While the computers, the internet, smartphones and AI all appear magical, they haven’t actually translated into equally magical economic progress. That, at least, is the counter-intuitive argument of the Oxford economist Carl Benedikt Frey whose new book, How Progress Ends, suggests that the digital revolution isn’t resulting in an equivalent revolution of productivity. History is repeating itself in an equally paradoxical way, Frey warns. We may, indeed, be repeating the productivity stagnation of the 1970s, in spite of our technological marvels. Unlike the 19th-century industrial revolution that radically transformed how we work, today's digital tools—however impressive—are primarily automating existing processes rather than creating fundamentally new types of economic activity that drive broad-based growth. And AI, by making existing work easier rather than creating new industries, will only compound this paradox. It might be the fate of not just the United States and Europe, but China as well. That, Frey warns, is how all progress will end.1. The Productivity Paradox is Real Despite revolutionary digital technologies, we're not seeing the productivity gains that past technological revolutions delivered. It took a century for steam to show its full economic impact, four decades for electricity—but even accounting for lag time, the computer revolution has underperformed economically compared to its transformative social effects.2. Automation vs. Innovation: The Critical Distinction True progress comes from creating entirely new industries and types of work, not just automating existing processes. The mid-20th century boom created the automobile industry and countless supporting sectors. Today's AI primarily makes existing work easier rather than spawning fundamentally new economic activities.3. Institutional Structure Trumps Technology The Soviet Union succeeded when scaling existing technology but failed when innovation was needed because it lacked decentralized exploration. Success requires competitive, decentralized systems where different actors can take different bets—like Google finding funding after Bessemer Ventures said no.4. Europe's Innovation Crisis Has a Clear Diagnosis Europe lags in digital not due to lack of talent or funding, but because of fragmented markets and regulatory burdens. The EU's internal trade barriers in services amount to a 110% tariff equivalent, while regulations like GDPR primarily benefit large incumbents who can absorb compliance costs.5. Geography Still Matters in the Digital Age Silicon Valley's success stemmed from unenforceable non-compete clauses that enabled job-hopping and knowledge transfer, while Detroit's enforcement of non-competes after 1985 contributed to its decline. As AI makes many services tradeable globally, high-cost innovation centers face new competitive pressures from lower-cost locations.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  46:07

  --------

  46:07
• Should Billionaires Be Banned? Why Extreme Wealth Might Be Incompatible with Democracy and the Survival of the Earth

  Should being a billionaire be illegal? Or, at least, actively discouraged? That’s the argument at the heart of Ingrid Robeyns’ intriguing case against extreme wealth, Limitarianism. It’s an argument particularly pertinent in a week when Tesla is offering to make Elon Musk a trillionaire if he can reach certain sales targets. For Robeyns, an ethicist at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, her arguments against extreme wealth are both moral and utilitarian. On the one hand, she argues that nobody truly "deserves" billions because economic success depends heavily on factors beyond individual control - genetic lottery, family circumstances, educational opportunities, and market timing. On the other hand, she contends that extreme wealth concentration actively harms society by undermining democracy, encouraging unsustainable consumption patterns, and creating inefficient resource allocation. While acknowledging that such reforms may take decades to implement, Robeyns floats the idea of wealth caps around $10 million, arguing this still rewards success while preventing the most flagrant concentrations of economic and political power. Spare change for Elon and his plutocratic bros. So don’t hold your breath for a Musk funded Limitarian political party in the next few centuries. 1. Why Billionaires Don't "Deserve" Their Wealth Robeyns argues that extreme wealth is largely undeserved because success depends heavily on factors beyond individual control - genetics, family background, education access, and market timing. She contends that acknowledging luck's role should make us more humble about wealth accumulation and challenge narratives of self-made billionaires.2. Extreme Wealth Threatens Democratic Equality She identifies a concerning alliance between extreme wealth holders and anti-democratic forces, arguing that billionaire-level fortunes inevitably translate into disproportionate political influence that undermines the principle of political equality essential to democratic governance.3. Billionaire Lifestyles Are Environmentally Unsustainable The consumption patterns of the ultra-wealthy - private jets, space tourism, multiple estates - cannot be scaled to the broader population without ecological collapse. This creates a sustainability paradox where a tiny elite's lifestyle choices constrain options for everyone else.4. Wealth Caps Could Preserve Innovation While Limiting Harm Rather than eliminating all inequality, Robeyns proposes capping individual wealth at roughly $10 million, arguing this still provides substantial rewards for success while preventing the most harmful concentrations of economic and political power.5. Implementation Requires Generational Cultural Change Robeyns acknowledges her proposals are "regulative ideals" that may take decades to implement, comparing the timeline to how neoliberal ideas took generations to become mainstream policy. She emphasizes changing cultural narratives about extreme wealth as the essential first step.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  49:13

  --------

  49:13
• Why Trump Might Be Right About Greenland: How a 57,000-Person Island Became Critical to 21st Century Geopolitics

  If Donald Trump is a broken clock only right twice daily, then one of those truths might be US policy toward Greenland. According to the Australian based geo-strategist Elizabeth Buchanan, Trump is correct to be preoccupied with American influence over, and perhaps even ownership of Greenland. In her new book, So You Want To Own Greenland, Buchanan argues that the 57,000-person continental super-sized island is becoming central to 21st Century geopolitics. From the Vikings to the (yes) colonizing Danes, she argues, Greenland has always been an important piece of the North Atlantic strategic jigsaw. Today, however, with the melting polar ice cap and its vast mineral resources, Greenland is becoming essential - not just to native Greenlanders, the United States, Denmark and Canada, but also to Russia, China and even India. 1. America's Greenland Interest Predates Trump by 160 Years US interest in Greenland dates back to 1867 and the Seward Purchase ("Seward's Folly"). Trump's fixation isn't erratic - it reflects longstanding American strategic thinking about North American geography that transcends partisan politics.2. Denmark is a Colonial Power, Not a Progressive Beacon Contrary to its reputation for happiness and human rights, Denmark runs Greenland as a modern colony. This includes a forced contraception program targeting 12-13 year old Inuit girls and economic control where 50%+ of working-age Greenlanders work for the government.3. Climate Change is Creating the "New Panama Canal" The melting Arctic ice cap is opening new shipping routes between Europe and Asia through the North. Any cargo passing this route must go through Greenlandic/Danish waters, making Greenland a critical chokepoint for 21st-century global trade.4. Greenland Wants Independence, But Denmark Won't Let Go Greenlanders voted for independence in a referendum, but Danish law requires the Danish Parliament to approve any independence - a catch-22. Without Greenland (and the Faroe Islands), Denmark ceases to be a "kingdom" and becomes just Denmark.5. China and India Are the Real Wild Cards While focus remains on US-Denmark tensions, China and India are rapidly expanding their Arctic presence through "research" missions and shipping investments. For every American business jet landing in Greenland, there are Chinese and Indian interests as well.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  37:44

  --------

  37:44
• The Unluckiest Generation: Confessions of a Millennial

  So are millennials really the unluckiest generation? Yes and no. At least according to their unofficial biographer, Charlie Wells, the energetic London based Bloomberg reporter and author of What Happened to Millennials. In a way, Wells is a defender of his much-maligned and misunderstood generation. But his new book is also a kind of confessional of five millennials who, in his view, represent the spirit of those who came of age at the turn of the century. Wells’ own soulful mix of forthrightness and insecurity offers a glimpse into the millennial heart. Could it really be the ubiquitous electronic screen that is both the cause and effect of his generation's over-publicized struggles with anxiety? Or are millennials simply the first cohort to have their universal coming-of-age confessions broadcast live for all to see?1. Generational narratives are often outdated Wells argues that millennials are actually 31% wealthier than boomers were at the same age, but the "unlucky generation" story persists. This suggests we cling to generational myths even when underlying data changes.2. Technology made universal struggles visible Critical questioning revealed a core insight: millennial coming-of-age difficulties aren't unique - they're just the first to be documented and broadcast through social media. Previous generations had similar struggles without the surveillance.3. The "lived through" narrative is problematic Challenges to claims about "living through" 9/11 and the Great Recession exposed how generations can inflate shared cultural moments into defining traumas, even when most people weren't directly affected. This suggests we should scrutinize whether collective experiences truly shape entire cohorts or simply become convenient narratives.4. Confessional culture shapes identity Wells connected reality TV's "confessional" format to how millennials communicate - suggesting media formats influence how entire generations process and share experiences, from AOL Instant Messenger to social media oversharing.5. Economic inequality matters more than generational identity The wealth gap between rich and poor millennials ($100,000 wider than for boomers) suggests class divisions within the generation are more significant than generational differences between cohorts.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  40:44

  --------

  40:44
• Why Humans Have Such Big Brains (No, it's not Because of our Intelligence)

  So why do we humans have such big brains? According to the NYU neuroscientist Nikolay Kukushkin, it’s because of language. In wanting to talk to one another, Kukushkin argues in his new book, One Hand Clapping, we need to be able to think more coherently than other species. Thus our uniquely big brains. Language itself emerged from our increasingly social lifestyle, Kukushkin explains, which developed after our mammalian ancestors spent 150 million years hiding from dinosaurs in what he calls the "nocturnal bottleneck." And what good have our big brains done us? That, according to Kukushkin, is a trickier question. It’s certainly made us more social, even collective, in our politics and culture. But it also seems to have divided us from one another, fostering as much misery and violence as harmony. Indeed, Kukushkin suggests that we've always been "grumpy"—even back when we lived in caves. The difference now is that we have the internet to advertise our grumpiness. More seriously, though, we're the first species to actually care about our global impact—and that's something worth celebrating, even in our seemingly apocalyptic age. * Big brains evolved for language, not intelligence - Humans developed large brains specifically to handle the cognitive demands of communication and social coordination, not because we're inherently "smarter" than other species.* Dinosaurs accidentally created human society - Our mammalian ancestors spent 150 million years hiding from dinosaurs in a "nocturnal bottleneck." When dinosaurs died out, primates moved into daylight and trees, exposing them to predators and forcing them into larger social groups for protection.* The mind-body divide is imaginary - Kukushkin argues that consciousness isn't a special, separate phenomenon but simply part of the natural world—like discarded notions of human exceptionalism or "vital force" in living beings.* Collectivism may be more "natural" than individualism - Most human societies throughout history have been collectivist; highly individualistic societies like modern America may be the evolutionary outlier requiring explanation.* We're the first species that cares about global impact - While humans have always been "grumpy" and prone to conflict, we're unique in actually caring about our planetary-scale effects—giving us potential to change course unlike previous species that nearly destroyed Earth.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  37:50

  --------

  37:50

More Business podcasts

Trending Business podcasts

About Keen On America

Keen On America: Podcasts in Family