Arnold - First I just want to thank you for hosting Dan Klein a while back. He took a lot of crap from certain libertarians over the past few months for his support of Trump and Republicans. For this Dan Klein moved up a few notches on my FIT. He was always in the top five for his 1) work on Adam Smith, 2) his attempt to reclaim the word liberal from progressives, and 3) his “Inventing the Individual” book discussion group, but now he takes on a new badge for openly supporting Trump and Republicans when it mattered most.
Quite. He’s my dissertation chair, and we still work on projects together from time to time. Couldn’t ask for a better mentor; he works his ass off for the Adam Smith Program at GMU.
The ill advised grift driven proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, contrary to what our leaders expected, far from weakening Russia has been a big boost to their war-fighting skills and technology, especially in drones and anti-drone warfare where we have little actual combat experience. We have drawn down our stocks of munitions which cannot be replaced anytime soon due in part to the relocation of basic manufacturing overseas. They are building an impressive battle hardened army while we are focused on DEI instead of competence. Russia, now proceeding like a steam roller on the ground will extract a steep price for bringing the conflict to a close, which will include their possession of the Donbas or most of it, and neutralization of Ukraine. The outcome will cast a shadow over the continued existence of NATO as European members will wonder what protection it would offer them even as they are pressured to increase their contribution. If NATO couldn't dissuade or stop Russia in Ukraine, despite providing everything short of ground forces, which would have been political suicide for western nations, then it will be seen as an expensive paper tiger. This in turn discredits US unipolar hegemony. We should be thinking about how to pursue our strategic interests in a the coming multipolar world, rather than continuing the senseless indiscriminate grift-driven belligerence.
Elsewhere Sir Niall Ferguson wrote “the United States has no equal in the realm of military technology and firepower. Actually, no. We have a military that is simultaneously expensive and unequal to the tasks it confronts.” (https://www.thefp.com/p/were-all-soviets-now ).
It might well be unfortunate if his words on interest payments and defense spending were interpreted to mean that defense spending needs to be boosted even more so that it exceeds the growing interest payments. After all, huge boosts to defense spending in the past have produced nothing to show for and failed to improve the military posture. But none of the establishment players seem too interested in accounting for past looting. So how would they increase defense spending relative to interest payments now? For a long time now it appears that long-term establishment strategy is to eliminate Social Security and Medicare benefits and use the revenue streams that fund those programs for more patronage and clientelism.
Those who do not see this as a desirable outcome, might consider advocating for smarter defense spending rather than more. Table 25-1 “Policy
of the President’s Budget provides a sandbox for exploring how funding could be moved from low priority programs to higher programs. Page 1 starts with Function 050 National Defense and lists a hundred or so programs. How about moving money from low-priority dysfunctional programs like Formerly utilized sites remedial action and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to Research, development, test and evaluation?
Before plowing more money into procurement, one might also consider if there are not more effective and efficient alternatives to the ineffective, broken, and wasteful system currently in place. Starting from the ground up, now that the election is over, a good place to start might be to encourage the Nippon Steel acquisition of US Steel to be completed, the sooner the better. Then, given that DOD has immense contracts with a firm of questionable competence like Boeing (https://potomacofficersclub.com/articles/what-are-the-biggest-boeing-government-contracts/ ), perhaps government-to-government negotiations to expand the US defense industrial base with new production facilities in the US would save money and produce equipment in sufficient quantity and quality to meet national security demands. Sweden and India were negotiating a Gripen fighter production facility in India a few years ago but that fell through. Maybe such an arrangement could be made to work in the US?
“I think that the most sober way to think about chatbots is as a significant improvement in the way that humans can communicate with computers.” Yes. Apple’s Siri is a great example and it’s only just the beginning.
The Ted Gioia article is overly harsh on Apple/Tim Cook regarding Apple Vision Pro. Gioia has 864 Likes in that article as of right now. How? Why?
In graduate (2008) school, I decided not to write a masters thesis and opted instead for A) a comprehensive oral examination by three professors, 1) quantum, 2) physical and 3) geometrical optics, and B) a master report in which I researched and wrote on volumetric 3-D displays. Having studied different display types for a few months I came to the conclusion that 2-D displays would likely win out over VR headsets and 3-D displays. It’s not obvious why VR headsets and 3-D dispose are so difficult to build. The devil is in the physics and human brain. I would not expect the CEO of Apple to understand these details. Here’s a perfect example of knowing what to believe is knowing who to believe. Had Tim hired me, I would have tried to talk him out of Apple Vision Pro, and likely would have failed, since engineers at Apple are so aggressive. Not sure how Tim would know who to trust on this? I suppose one should always enter each big spending decision with much skepticism and seek countering viewpoints? 2-D is just so much simpler and easier to build. What is the comparative advantage of headsets over a regular 2-D display? TBD. I suppose we should be grateful that our best technology company tried and failed at VR headsets. Now we can move onto other experiments like better robots.
Arnold - First I just want to thank you for hosting Dan Klein a while back. He took a lot of crap from certain libertarians over the past few months for his support of Trump and Republicans. For this Dan Klein moved up a few notches on my FIT. He was always in the top five for his 1) work on Adam Smith, 2) his attempt to reclaim the word liberal from progressives, and 3) his “Inventing the Individual” book discussion group, but now he takes on a new badge for openly supporting Trump and Republicans when it mattered most.
If you missed Arnold’s interview of Prof. Klein, here it is. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nHiMRNERQB4
Klein is a great guy. I owe him a lot myself.
Do you know him personally?
Quite. He’s my dissertation chair, and we still work on projects together from time to time. Couldn’t ask for a better mentor; he works his ass off for the Adam Smith Program at GMU.
The ill advised grift driven proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, contrary to what our leaders expected, far from weakening Russia has been a big boost to their war-fighting skills and technology, especially in drones and anti-drone warfare where we have little actual combat experience. We have drawn down our stocks of munitions which cannot be replaced anytime soon due in part to the relocation of basic manufacturing overseas. They are building an impressive battle hardened army while we are focused on DEI instead of competence. Russia, now proceeding like a steam roller on the ground will extract a steep price for bringing the conflict to a close, which will include their possession of the Donbas or most of it, and neutralization of Ukraine. The outcome will cast a shadow over the continued existence of NATO as European members will wonder what protection it would offer them even as they are pressured to increase their contribution. If NATO couldn't dissuade or stop Russia in Ukraine, despite providing everything short of ground forces, which would have been political suicide for western nations, then it will be seen as an expensive paper tiger. This in turn discredits US unipolar hegemony. We should be thinking about how to pursue our strategic interests in a the coming multipolar world, rather than continuing the senseless indiscriminate grift-driven belligerence.
Elsewhere Sir Niall Ferguson wrote “the United States has no equal in the realm of military technology and firepower. Actually, no. We have a military that is simultaneously expensive and unequal to the tasks it confronts.” (https://www.thefp.com/p/were-all-soviets-now ).
It might well be unfortunate if his words on interest payments and defense spending were interpreted to mean that defense spending needs to be boosted even more so that it exceeds the growing interest payments. After all, huge boosts to defense spending in the past have produced nothing to show for and failed to improve the military posture. But none of the establishment players seem too interested in accounting for past looting. So how would they increase defense spending relative to interest payments now? For a long time now it appears that long-term establishment strategy is to eliminate Social Security and Medicare benefits and use the revenue streams that fund those programs for more patronage and clientelism.
Those who do not see this as a desirable outcome, might consider advocating for smarter defense spending rather than more. Table 25-1 “Policy
Net Budget Authority By Function, Category, and Program “of the Analytical Perspectives volume (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/25-1_fy2025.pdf )
of the President’s Budget provides a sandbox for exploring how funding could be moved from low priority programs to higher programs. Page 1 starts with Function 050 National Defense and lists a hundred or so programs. How about moving money from low-priority dysfunctional programs like Formerly utilized sites remedial action and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to Research, development, test and evaluation?
Before plowing more money into procurement, one might also consider if there are not more effective and efficient alternatives to the ineffective, broken, and wasteful system currently in place. Starting from the ground up, now that the election is over, a good place to start might be to encourage the Nippon Steel acquisition of US Steel to be completed, the sooner the better. Then, given that DOD has immense contracts with a firm of questionable competence like Boeing (https://potomacofficersclub.com/articles/what-are-the-biggest-boeing-government-contracts/ ), perhaps government-to-government negotiations to expand the US defense industrial base with new production facilities in the US would save money and produce equipment in sufficient quantity and quality to meet national security demands. Sweden and India were negotiating a Gripen fighter production facility in India a few years ago but that fell through. Maybe such an arrangement could be made to work in the US?
“I think that the most sober way to think about chatbots is as a significant improvement in the way that humans can communicate with computers.” Yes. Apple’s Siri is a great example and it’s only just the beginning.
The Ted Gioia article is overly harsh on Apple/Tim Cook regarding Apple Vision Pro. Gioia has 864 Likes in that article as of right now. How? Why?
In graduate (2008) school, I decided not to write a masters thesis and opted instead for A) a comprehensive oral examination by three professors, 1) quantum, 2) physical and 3) geometrical optics, and B) a master report in which I researched and wrote on volumetric 3-D displays. Having studied different display types for a few months I came to the conclusion that 2-D displays would likely win out over VR headsets and 3-D displays. It’s not obvious why VR headsets and 3-D dispose are so difficult to build. The devil is in the physics and human brain. I would not expect the CEO of Apple to understand these details. Here’s a perfect example of knowing what to believe is knowing who to believe. Had Tim hired me, I would have tried to talk him out of Apple Vision Pro, and likely would have failed, since engineers at Apple are so aggressive. Not sure how Tim would know who to trust on this? I suppose one should always enter each big spending decision with much skepticism and seek countering viewpoints? 2-D is just so much simpler and easier to build. What is the comparative advantage of headsets over a regular 2-D display? TBD. I suppose we should be grateful that our best technology company tried and failed at VR headsets. Now we can move onto other experiments like better robots.
Maybe Ferguson's law is akin to the Philip's Curve in recent years.