I fear Europe isn't at risk of falling behind--its already happenedt As evidence, I'm looking at three things: its expensive energy policies, it's lethargic response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and the sacrifice of its youth (ie. post-2008 crisis austerity measures that lead to up to 50% unemployment rate for those in their 20's in many EU members, plus the insane housing policies leading to shortages across Europe that affect young people the most of all). It's a great blow to classical liberalism worldwide.
My working hypothesis is that all of these anti-growth policies originate from within the shadow of both world wars. Surprisingly in that context, Poland appears to be doing great and experiencing intense growth. Hope it's not just the effect of catching up.
I agree with pretty much everything that you wrote. I would, however, like to push back on a few points.
1) I agree with you that the current progress movement has become heavily focused on the immediate present and future. Overall, I think this is a good thing, but I believe that we have pivoted too far away from a rigorous study of history.
My From Poverty to Progress book series and Substack column are based on the assumption that the best way to increase future progress is to understand how we promoted progress in the past. That is why I focus mainly on history: one year ago, one decade ago, one century ago, and one millennium ago. If we do not do this, I am afraid that the movement will degenerate into Futurism, which I see as endless speculations on what will happen and which cool new technological innovation will make the most difference.
As someone who was in the digital technology industry for 20 years, I have a great respect for practitioners (i.e. entrepreneurs and engineers), but as a former academic I know that theory and a study of history are also important.
2) You mentioned that you hoped that Jason Crawford's future book will crystallize the core beliefs of the movement. There is no need to wait. My two books also give us a good starting point. I am not saying that it is the end of the discussion, but I think that it should be the beginning of it.
3) I also wrote a 10-part series on Progress Studies, which was designed to provoke a discussion on where we need to go. I think a real discussion on key topics will help move in the proper direction. Otherwise, we may get a lot of movement in the wrong direction. I would love to hear your thoughts on the topic:
Many years ago I was speaking to a company in Europe who worried they were running out of “potential” clients for their software. They had nearly saturated the EU market. After an awkward moment of silence, I asked if they knew of any other markets who could use their software, spoke English and had money. They were stumped (I promise you this is not made up.). I coughed and asked if they would license the software for me to take back to New York. “We could never operate in America!” and immediately listed everything from 7-day a week work to the time zones. At that moment, I knew what was holding Europeans back wasn’t technology or capital or even innovation. It was a belief in - a desperate clinging to - the Old Ways. And then I remembered why we call America the New World and Europe….. you see the point.
As an Eastern European who spent 10 years in London before moving to New York, propelled by frustration with the exact stagnant culture you describe here - couldn’t agree more! Really want Europe to wake up, so many brilliant people there sort of just standing around
This juxtaposition is, while perhaps a bit unfair, also devilishly accurate. It boggles the mind that our European friends still do not accept that reusable rocketry is viable.
China has not proven this technology either, but they are “all in” on reuse, aiming for all rockets to be reusable by 2035.
In Europe, a concern about jobs seems to take precedence. If we can reuse a rocket…how are we going to keep the people who build them employed?
This luddite logic has been proven wrong over and over again. Of all continents, Europe should be the most well-versed.
And yes, the progress movement needs to continue, in fact, it needs to accelerate. The reality is that our voices of rational optimism are always going to be drowned out by the voices of irrational pessimism.
Thanks! Fully agree. The juxtaposition is maybe a bit unfair. There are some efforts for re-use. But still, sometimes a mental picture is better to get the message across than a data-based argument.
> Europeans care a lot about recycling. The European Union
Please don't make the mistake of conflating what Europeans want with what the EU institutions want. As you are undoubtably well aware, the EU is a dictatorship in the areas that it controls (which increase every year, against the treaties), and it has no interest in anything beyond increasing its grip over a stagnating culture.
So Europe doesn't need a new "aesthetic". What it needs is for every country that matters to exit the EU whilst fully repudiating its institutions and ideology. Then and only then will Europe have the option of catching up to America. There is no other way out of this quagmire.
Great piece!
I fear Europe isn't at risk of falling behind--its already happenedt As evidence, I'm looking at three things: its expensive energy policies, it's lethargic response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and the sacrifice of its youth (ie. post-2008 crisis austerity measures that lead to up to 50% unemployment rate for those in their 20's in many EU members, plus the insane housing policies leading to shortages across Europe that affect young people the most of all). It's a great blow to classical liberalism worldwide.
My working hypothesis is that all of these anti-growth policies originate from within the shadow of both world wars. Surprisingly in that context, Poland appears to be doing great and experiencing intense growth. Hope it's not just the effect of catching up.
Great article, and an even better title!
I agree with pretty much everything that you wrote. I would, however, like to push back on a few points.
1) I agree with you that the current progress movement has become heavily focused on the immediate present and future. Overall, I think this is a good thing, but I believe that we have pivoted too far away from a rigorous study of history.
My From Poverty to Progress book series and Substack column are based on the assumption that the best way to increase future progress is to understand how we promoted progress in the past. That is why I focus mainly on history: one year ago, one decade ago, one century ago, and one millennium ago. If we do not do this, I am afraid that the movement will degenerate into Futurism, which I see as endless speculations on what will happen and which cool new technological innovation will make the most difference.
As someone who was in the digital technology industry for 20 years, I have a great respect for practitioners (i.e. entrepreneurs and engineers), but as a former academic I know that theory and a study of history are also important.
2) You mentioned that you hoped that Jason Crawford's future book will crystallize the core beliefs of the movement. There is no need to wait. My two books also give us a good starting point. I am not saying that it is the end of the discussion, but I think that it should be the beginning of it.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/my-books
3) I also wrote a 10-part series on Progress Studies, which was designed to provoke a discussion on where we need to go. I think a real discussion on key topics will help move in the proper direction. Otherwise, we may get a lot of movement in the wrong direction. I would love to hear your thoughts on the topic:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/what-is-progress-studies
Many years ago I was speaking to a company in Europe who worried they were running out of “potential” clients for their software. They had nearly saturated the EU market. After an awkward moment of silence, I asked if they knew of any other markets who could use their software, spoke English and had money. They were stumped (I promise you this is not made up.). I coughed and asked if they would license the software for me to take back to New York. “We could never operate in America!” and immediately listed everything from 7-day a week work to the time zones. At that moment, I knew what was holding Europeans back wasn’t technology or capital or even innovation. It was a belief in - a desperate clinging to - the Old Ways. And then I remembered why we call America the New World and Europe….. you see the point.
It’s not about AI. Or capital. Or anything else.
It’s all in your head.
As an Eastern European who spent 10 years in London before moving to New York, propelled by frustration with the exact stagnant culture you describe here - couldn’t agree more! Really want Europe to wake up, so many brilliant people there sort of just standing around
What about obesity and shorter life expectancy
I agree that the European quality of life is still very high. Optimally we can get more dynamism without obesity and shorter life expectancy.
Excellent framing and analysis, Kevin
Wonderful write up Kevin
This juxtaposition is, while perhaps a bit unfair, also devilishly accurate. It boggles the mind that our European friends still do not accept that reusable rocketry is viable.
China has not proven this technology either, but they are “all in” on reuse, aiming for all rockets to be reusable by 2035.
In Europe, a concern about jobs seems to take precedence. If we can reuse a rocket…how are we going to keep the people who build them employed?
This luddite logic has been proven wrong over and over again. Of all continents, Europe should be the most well-versed.
And yes, the progress movement needs to continue, in fact, it needs to accelerate. The reality is that our voices of rational optimism are always going to be drowned out by the voices of irrational pessimism.
Thanks! Fully agree. The juxtaposition is maybe a bit unfair. There are some efforts for re-use. But still, sometimes a mental picture is better to get the message across than a data-based argument.
> Europeans care a lot about recycling. The European Union
Please don't make the mistake of conflating what Europeans want with what the EU institutions want. As you are undoubtably well aware, the EU is a dictatorship in the areas that it controls (which increase every year, against the treaties), and it has no interest in anything beyond increasing its grip over a stagnating culture.
So Europe doesn't need a new "aesthetic". What it needs is for every country that matters to exit the EU whilst fully repudiating its institutions and ideology. Then and only then will Europe have the option of catching up to America. There is no other way out of this quagmire.