6 Comments

Pretty sure you meant Andreessen to tell Tyler Cowen he's "anomalous" (true) rather than "anonymous" (not if he can help it)

Expand full comment

Touché...

Expand full comment

"That social power should be in the hands of those who have the wealth, however acquired; and that those who have the wealth are also of the rightful controllers via their lobbying in their megaphones of our collective efforts to shape the distribution of wealth—that has got to be an even weirder doctrine than the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, or the doctrine that the descendants of those who conquered Gaul with Clovis are the natural ruling class:"

This did not seem so crazy in the "Glorious Years." Trickle down is not so bad as long as there is enough being poured in at the top. Democrats made sure there was a trickle and Republicans made sure that enough went in at the top. But then came the realization that if you slowed down the trickle. more styed on top as a reward for pouring. [And then that suffiently regressive, tax cuts -- the "Tax Cuts for the Rich and Deficits Act of 2017" being the epitome, so far -- could make income trickle up!]

BTW the descendants of Rolo, never agreed about that for France, although they were perfectly happy to apply it, mutatis mutandis, in Britain.

Expand full comment

Wow, I really liked that. We look for a version of the web which has trusted identities and trusted microtransactions. We can have that version without blockchain, by instead relying on authorities - authorities such as ICANN.

This perhaps looks like silos, but it doesn't have to be. The Fed could offer a "trusted identity" service. So could lots of other "trusted" institutions. Relying on the blockchain is relying on something that is inherently slow and potentially unstable. Blockchains can <em>and have</em> split rather than recognize certain transactions. Blockchains are "democratic" in the sense that there is voting, but that's not a "one-person one-vote" system. That's a "one-computer one-vote" system. This is not a good way to support trusted identity.

We already have certificate authorities for websites. We know how to do this. Microtransactions in existing currencies are also a known technology. Thing is, bigwigs can't make lots of money doing it, so it isn't going to happen quickly.

Expand full comment

Yep. This is an obvious public good here...

Expand full comment

The Cown/Andreessen podcast was pretty much unlistenable for me once Andreessen started going off and speaking too fast for we ordinary mortals to comprehend. I did read the transcript that Tyler Cowen later posted and find the argument unconvincing. I'm pretty much retired other than a couple of volunteer jobs and an occasional consulting gig. I regularly listen to podcasts when I am out walking, cooking, and driving on various errands. Maybe I 10-15 hours a week listening to various podcast; I do not know whether this is a typical listening amount. Google tells me there are 2M podcasters putting out content. I listen to about 15 podcasts which as you can see is a very small number out of the podcast universe. Some of these are monetized by paying through Substack while others unlock features from a Patreon donation. NPR stuff is free.

Andreessen says that Web3 will unlock all this creative energy that is currently either pent up or cannot be monetized. I disagree. I'm not about to increase my podcast listening as I would not be able to read Professor DeLong's forthcoming book (already pre-ordered). I also enjoy six other Substacks in addition to this one and of course those are already monetized.

Now Andreessen is a smart guy but even smart guys are brought down by their own hubris. I know that his firm has made a lot of crypto investments but again this is at present just a speculative toy that is causing a lot of suffering for those who can't recognize the next coming of tulip mania.

If Web3 were the potential next big thing don't you think Amazon, Google, or Microsoft would be capturing this?

Expand full comment