If you're (say) 25, betting on an apocalyptic future and doing a bunch of prepping for a Mad Max future, you're going to have a long, painful wait even if you're right. It might be 2060 by the time your future actually arrives. You'll be a 65-year old. You'll have lived life.
-
-
4. is huge and we're only now beginning to appreciate how huge. 1851 to 1939 was the heyday of World's Fairs, when technological prowess was synonymous with national identity. The World's Fairs went into decline after that and become a joke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_fair#Industrialization_(1851%E2%80%931938) …
Show this thread -
After 1939 the World's Fair stopped being some sort of national tech olympics and became a kind of boring bureaucrat show (something similar is going to happen to the sports olympics soon...). Tech became a political commodity after 1939, not a way to build national identity.
Show this thread -
I think the starting point was the race to grab Nazi rocket scientists at the close of WW2. Once that chapter closed, it became clear that science and tech had gotten complex and valuable enough that they could not respect national boundaries.
Show this thread -
Complex advances would be the result of developments in a dozen countries, orchestrated by MNCs, and distributed to global markets, with only a little bit of border friction. Open source takes that logic to an extreme. Countries don't compete on tech anymore, corporations do.
Show this thread -
This creates an interesting political puzzle. To the extent nations continue to persist as the primary political units (at least another century imo), what will they be competing on if not technology?
Show this thread -
Modern nation-states date to 1648 (westphalia being the conventional starting point), so for 200 years or so, nations *didn't* compete on tech. They competed on mercantile economics and early-modern warfare. So one scenario is going back to that, which is what Trump wanted.
Show this thread -
I frankly don't think a reactionary turn to neomercantilism is plausible. The world is too dependent on non-zero-sum trade, which is dependent on technological progress, which is now owned by corporate forces, not national.
Show this thread -
Corporations are still nominally governed by nations. The US started a trade-war. The Chinese state interferes in IPOs. But in general, the ability to own corporations is weak because corporations are globally mobile. So if not tech or mercantilism, what then?
Show this thread -
Healthcare is actually a big candidate. Covid revealed public health governance and care delivery as a huge differentiator among nations, regardless of governance systems. With aging populations reliant on a service sector of relatively poor people, this is a big deal.
Show this thread -
There is a popular social darwinist view that pandemics are culls. This was kinda true in 1919 with the Spanish Flu, with the weak and aged succumbing at the margins leaving behind a healthier pool. Even if you buy this ideologically, it is descriptively a poor model for 2020.
Show this thread -
Off the top of my head, around WW2, around 16 young/working people supported 1 aged person in the US. Now it's down to 4:1 or 3:1 or so, and heading that way globally. And most of the 3 workers today are low-skill service workers with hard-to-automate jobs. "Cull" is bad model.
Show this thread -
The population structure of 2020 cannot handle "culls" from pandemics. We are at 7.5B headed to about a 9B peak in a couple of decades, with a very slow service automation trend in a barbell population of poor young people serving weak old people.
Show this thread -
Countries will compete on how well they solve this problem. So we now see a world marked by: a) relative American decline b) tech progress driven by corps still staffed by educated globalized elite c) nation-states competing on healthcare with barbell service+aged populations
Show this thread -
This boils down to how individuals see their lives: work for the most innovative companies remotely while living in the countries that manage healthcare best. This is a FAR cry from the world of even 1980 when nationality was identity rather than a healthcare provider.
Show this thread -
I'm not even exaggerating. Healthcare is increasingly the reason people choose to live in specific places, and constrains where they move to, both within and between countries.
Show this thread -
For the time being, your healthcare system determines your global mobility. Your certificate of recent Covid testing matters more than your passport. This acute condition will pass, but I suspect leave behind a "healthcare theater" on par with TSA "security theater"
Show this thread -
I think this is the biggest point of disconnect in the US even among believers in a positive, optimistic US future. Market fundamentalists who think healthcare is no different from any other good, and those who think it's an entirely different beast.
Show this thread -
The Obamacare debates of a decade ago are very interesting in light of the pandemic. Back then as now, the debate was over individual mandates, individual responsibility, individualism was key issue. Antivaxxers began their rise then too. Collective health was a marginal concern.
Show this thread -
It is still possible to argue with a straight face that healthcare should primarily be an individually purchased market commodity, and you should get what you can afford, same as the logic of diamond rings or pizza or cars.
Show this thread -
But the flip side of that is: if you make individuals responsible for their own health, they won't accept any share of responsibility for collective health. They won't accept lockdowns or isolation or masking mandates, let alone allow state-enforced quarantines. Result: 267k dead
Show this thread -
Healthcare, unlike say transportation, is *irreducibly* collective due to the existence of pandemic threats. There is no meaningful debate like there is between private cars vs public transit. A market fundamentalist who does not recognize this is signing up for death-by-market.
Show this thread -
You could argue that energy can become irreducibly collective if climate change progresses enough, but healthcare is already there. Healthcare has to be minimally collectivized at a level I suspect private insurance alone cannot achieve.
Show this thread -
So back to nation-state competitiveness... if nations compete on healthcare, and are forced by nature to do it in a collectivized way over the objections of screaming red-scare types as the bodies pile up... how do they pay for it? What's the tax base in this world?
Show this thread -
If wealth and income gravitate to the wealthy and middle classes, linked to employment or work for MNCs, income and corporate taxability become as mobile as capital itself. Countries were already trying to fence in capital, and will get way more aggressive in the future.
Show this thread -
Both human and capital mobility will go down in the future, but I suspect capital mobility will go down more. Covid has created a small, tight window of opportunity where the corporate world is in bad trouble and needs state bailouts across the board.
Show this thread -
For a few years, the corporate world is basically like a public utility. Especially things like airlines. I expect countries to move aggressively to maintain ability to generate tax revenue. This even affects solopreneur internet commerce (tried selling courses in Europe?)
Show this thread -
This will succeed to only a moderate level since the imperative to make a profit and operate in the best markets precedes tax opportunities. Overall, I think governments will never fully dig out of the Covid hole, especially federal levels worldwide.
Show this thread -
My suspicion is that city-states will get stronger in their ability to create captive tax-revenue streams from a low base, while nations will weaken from a high base. And healthcare will increasingly get linked to cities.
Show this thread -
Already the best hospitals are in cities... where collective health threats are also highest. You can temporarily flee cities for the countryside, but the diseases will eventually reach you, but you'll have to go to the healthcare in the cities.
Show this thread -
So that's the future. Nations competing for tax revenue ultimately linked to multinationals driving tech progress, and using it to compete with each other on healthcare for aging populations... while US and oil decline from a peak and divergence rules and cities rise > nations
Show this thread - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.